Don't look if you don't like how I write/draw things

[anndelise]

[snegledmaca]

I like it. It makes sense to me.

[ncassidy]

Intense. I do too.

[Jonathan]

Interesting as always. But you seem to use the terms in two different ways. Your first diagram associates your terms with the functions:

Definitions = T
Implications = N
Impressions = F
Sensations = S

In your second diagram, you use the same terminologies to refer to the 'information elements' which in Socionics are supposed to serve as subatomic-particles, so to speak, to the functions. Interestingly, these may also be seen as related to clubs. Hence, in this one:

Defined = S&T
Implied = N&F

However, you don't recycle impressions and sensations; here, instead you have:

Involved = S&F
Detached=N&T

I agree that the common understanding of the adjectives seems to fit well in both diagrams. However, how it's confusing that "definitions" is the same as T, but that "defined" relates to both S and T; and that "implications" is the same as N, but "implied" relates to both N and F.

For clarity, I would recommend abandoning the 1st diagram and the part of the last page that refers to it, or else explaining why you're recycling terms to mean something different.

[anndelise]

Interesting as always. But you seem to use the terms in two different ways. Your first diagram associates your terms with the functions:

Definitions = T
Implications = N
Impressions = F
Sensations = S

In your second diagram, you use the same terminologies to refer to the 'information elements' which in Socionics are supposed to serve as subatomic-particles, so to speak, to the functions. Interestingly, these may also be seen as related to clubs. Hence, in this one:

Defined = S&T
Implied = N&F

However, you don't recycle impressions and sensations; here, instead you have:

Involved = S&F
Detached=N&T

I agree that the common understanding of the adjectives seems to fit well in both diagrams. However, how it's confusing that "definitions" is the same as T, but that "defined" relates to both S and T; and that "implications" is the same as N, but "implied" relates to both N and F.

For clarity, I would recommend abandoning the 1st diagram and the part of the last page that refers to it, or else explaining why you're recycling terms to mean something different.

after posting it, i noticed that i'd forgotten to put the involved/detached implied/defined labels on the first diagram

however, my laptop needed recharging, and i am running into issues with that. so currently, i don't have access to my laptop nor to the images to alter, etc.

as for recycling terms...
i, personally, would rather use the term "explicit" rather than "defined" and "form" rather than "definition", however, some people seemed to be responding better to "defined" instead of "explicit" so I had to go with that.

also, my vocabulary is fairly limited, and as always, i hope that if i point someone into the direction i'm thinking, they'll be able to offer me terms that may better fit or be more acceptable. irregardless of the terminology, the concepts are what I'm trying to point towards.

[mikemex]

Seems quite promising. I'll comment on it tomorrow.

[anndelise]

Here is what that first graphic should have included:

(yes, i know, funky shape)






a chat transcript between a friend of mine and i regarding static/dynamic:

Ann Delise: i finally figured something out to help me distinguish the dynamic Xi from the static Xi
Ann Delise: in that one attempt of mine to get people to help work on translating a chart, it had S, N as continuous and F, T as discrete/divided
Ann Delise: so when it comes to relationships, Fi and Ti are discrete relationships; Ni and Si are continuous relationships
Ann Delise: discrete relationships sounds more static than continuous relationships
Ann Delise: though i'm still having issues with "continuous objects" = static; "discrete objects" = dynamic ???
[friend]: yes ... dynamic might be continuous (like an analog signal) and static might be discrete (like a digital signal) .... I have no idea what a "continuous object" is though
Ann Delise: it makes sense for the relationships, thought, right?
[friend]: no, not really .... but I don't understand the object/relation thing
Ann Delise: hmmm, i wonder if a continuous object would be something that is expected to ..last...a long time...say a situation, or a person, etc. while a discrete object would be something that is expected to only last a short time..say a spark, or a brief signal
[friend]: or vice versa
Ann Delise: i can't see it vice versa
[friend]: well, my monitor is an object ... it is a discrete entity ... I can see the boundaries that define the object ... at the same time it exists continually in that state
Ann Delise: ah, k
[friend]: I mean, the shape of the object will be the same tomorrow as it is today
[friend]: hopefully ... you never know when it might get tossed out a window

Note: upon checking after the conversation, (and after making the diagram) the translation had been
N, S = continual'nost' (integrity);
F, T = discretion (divisibility)