Information Aspects and Information Acquisition

[machintruc]

Yet another hypothesis... I'm being quite creative those days lol

This is partly inspired by Model T.

Information of each aspect is acquired differently. There are 16 modes of Information Acquisition.

I. Direction of Acquisition : INPUT / OUTPUT = Perception / Judgement

Sensing and Intuition are INPUT channels. Logic and Ethics are OUTPUT channels.

II. Velocity of Acquisition : SLOW / FAST = Explicit / Implicit

Sensing and Logic manages the information slowly ; Intuition and Ethics manages the information fast.
Explicit elements are more precise, and Implicit elements are more approximative.

III. Span of Acquisition : NARROW / WIDE = Fields / Objects

Extrovert elements manages the information widely, with more "span", and Introvert elements manages the information narrowly, with more "depth".

IV. Range of Acquisition : SHORT / LONG = Plus / Minus

Process types have a dominant Plus element, and Result types have a dominant Minus element.

Nomenclature :

LOW / HIGH will stand for INPUT / OUTPUT, SLOW / FAST, NARROW / WIDE, and SHORT / LONG.

Examples :

LSE's Dominant Information Acquisition element, +, have these parameters :

Direction = HIGH
Velocity = LOW
Span = HIGH
Range = LOW

So he tends to acquire information in this manner.

+ has all LOW parameters, and - has all HIGH parameters.

This is like Talanov's functions parameters, but for information elements.

[tcaudilllg]

I can agree with this. Keep with this.

[machintruc]

The four socionic macroaspects can be explained with only one parameter : VELOCITY.

Input means Negative velocity, Output means Positive velocity.
Explicit means Low velocity, Implicit means High velocity.

therefore

In the order of velocity, it gives : Intuition, Sensing, Logic, Ethics.

[machintruc]

This would also explain clubs as physiological informational attitudes. This means each jungian dichotomy has physiological content.

Temperaments

I / E - action slow / fast
P / J - reaction slow / fast

Clubs

S / N - input slow / fast
T / F - output slow / fast

SF has slow input and fast output
NT has fast input and slow output
ST has slow input and slow output - this explains why they seem so perfectionistic
NF has fast input and fast output - this explains why they seem so open-minded

Everything of this is Model-T-like...

Incidental EN IS - Slow Input more sensitive than Fast Input
Farsighted ES IN - Fast Input more sensitive than Slow Input
Obstinate EF IT- Slow Output more sensitive than Fast Output
Compliant ET IF- Fast Output more sensitive than Slow Output

[tcaudilllg]

(the structure implies the value...)

I see.... Keep at this... it'll pay off.

[Kristiina]

I want to see the practical value behind it. (PS! No, I'm not sensing)
So, for ENFj, this would mean that I manage information fast. Both input and output channels are fast. Input stream is very narrow, output is very wide. I use very little deep knowledge to give a very wide judgement about it. I have a dominant Plus element, but I don't know what it means. So it seems that ENFjs quickly acquire information (which are just details) and just as fast give their judgement on a wide scale. I actually agree with it! I still calculate very slowly and I suck at producing Te results, but it takes very little time to form an opinion about something and the opinion is usually very general (" (all) People who fail at exams are either stupid or lazy! (no other options for now) ").

[Jonathan]

I. Direction of Acquisition : INPUT / OUTPUT = Perception / Judgement

Sensing and Intuition are INPUT channels. Logic and Ethics are OUTPUT channels.

This is clearly true in the Jung and MBTI models. However, I thought that was one of the main ways in which Socionics differs from other Jung-based typologies. In Socionics, the creative function (also called the producing function) is the output, and the accepting function is the input.

How do you reconcile the difference between how directionality is discussed in classical Socionics, and your view that the perceiving functions are always the input?

[machintruc]

I. Direction of Acquisition : INPUT / OUTPUT = Perception / Judgement

Sensing and Intuition are INPUT channels. Logic and Ethics are OUTPUT channels.

This is clearly true in the Jung and MBTI models. However, I thought that was one of the main ways in which Socionics differs from other Jung-based typologies. In Socionics, the creative function (also called the producing function) is the output, and the accepting function is the input.

How do you reconcile the difference between how directionality is discussed in classical Socionics, and your view that the perceiving functions are always the input?

Judgement/Perception doesn't exactly mean output/input but rather : perception of outputs / perception of inputs

Talanov says that Sensing and Intuition are input channels ; Ethics and Logic are output channels.

Accepting/Producing doesn't mean input/output. It means that an aspect is photographed, and another is extrapolated from the first.

All elements input and output in Model A. I'm not talking of Model A here.

This "model" is closer to Model T, which is a model of "pure" IM.

[kopyk]

Wonder if this can be fused with B. F. Skinner (@hkkmr) and Pavlov somehow. @Saberstorm you're interested in Model T? @sindri, do you find the quoted part makes sense with the "EN ES IS IN seeks uniqueness, prestige, comfort, self-confidence, respectively"? @labcoat @Kenneth Chesney @silke cuz I wanna see what you got to say.

Yet another hypothesis... I'm being quite creative those days lol

This is partly inspired by Model T.

Information of each aspect is acquired differently. There are 16 modes of Information Acquisition.

I. Direction of Acquisition : INPUT / OUTPUT = Perception / Judgement

Sensing and Intuition are INPUT channels. Logic and Ethics are OUTPUT channels.

II. Velocity of Acquisition : SLOW / FAST = Explicit / Implicit

Sensing and Logic manages the information slowly ; Intuition and Ethics manages the information fast.
Explicit elements are more precise, and Implicit elements are more approximative.

III. Span of Acquisition : NARROW / WIDE = Fields / Objects

Extrovert elements manages the information widely, with more "span", and Introvert elements manages the information narrowly, with more "depth".

IV. Range of Acquisition : SHORT / LONG = Plus / Minus

Process types have a dominant Plus element, and Result types have a dominant Minus element.

Nomenclature :

LOW / HIGH will stand for INPUT / OUTPUT, SLOW / FAST, NARROW / WIDE, and SHORT / LONG.

Examples :

LSE's Dominant Information Acquisition element, +, have these parameters :

Direction = HIGH
Velocity = LOW
Span = HIGH
Range = LOW

So he tends to acquire information in this manner.

+ has all LOW parameters, and - has all HIGH parameters.

This is like Talanov's functions parameters, but for information elements.

This would also explain clubs as physiological informational attitudes. This means each jungian dichotomy has physiological content.

Temperaments

I / E - action slow / fast
P / J - reaction slow / fast

Clubs

S / N - input slow / fast
T / F - output slow / fast

SF has slow input and fast output
NT has fast input and slow output
ST has slow input and slow output - this explains why they seem so perfectionistic
NF has fast input and fast output - this explains why they seem so open-minded

Everything of this is Model-T-like...

Incidental EN IS - Slow Input more sensitive than Fast Input
Farsighted ES IN - Fast Input more sensitive than Slow Input
Obstinate EF IT- Slow Output more sensitive than Fast Output
Compliant ET IF- Fast Output more sensitive than Slow Output



Judgement/Perception doesn't exactly mean output/input but rather : perception of outputs / perception of inputs

Talanov says that Sensing and Intuition are input channels ; Ethics and Logic are output channels.

Accepting/Producing doesn't mean input/output. It means that an aspect is photographed, and another is extrapolated from the first.

All elements input and output in Model A. I'm not talking of Model A here.

This "model" is closer to Model T, which is a model of "pure" IM.

Seems like this and this could be compatible and/or relevant!

In his book Thinking Fast and Slow, the behavioral psychologist Daniel Kahneman posits that people use two different modes of thinking: one that is "fast, instinctive, and emotional", and one that is "slower, more deliberative, and more logical". Extend this to distinguish the types of people who rely more on the first mode and those who rely more on the second, and you have some scientific basis for the existence of this trope.

That and text about physiology (quoted) as it relates to type should be interesting to those who accuse socionics of being psuedoscientific. @lungs @gogo2 @InvisibleJim @Korpsy Knievel @chip @Rick @Capitalist Pig @Scapegrace I find it interesting how you ppl sat this one out (like a bunch of hypocritical cowards), mentions and all. Guess its true what Jung said then. Fi arrogantly depreciates the object so as to think better of itself. Fools.

(the structure implies the value...)

Very true. Structure (Ti, if you will) implies interest/value. You don't build a humongous horse with storage space for kicks, you build it for storage, as a gift, or as trap...

[Capitalist Pig]

That and text about physiology (quoted) as it relates to type should be interesting to those who accuse socionics of being psuedoscientific. @lungs @gogo2 @InvisibleJim @Korpsy Knievel @chip @Rick @Capitalist Pig @Scapegrace I find it interesting how you ppl sat this one out (like a bunch of hypocritical cowards), mentions and all. Guess its true what Jung said then. Fi arrogantly depreciates the object so as to think better of itself. Fools.

why are you mentioning me here . . .

Should give all the obstinate "SOCIONICS AINT SCIENCE HURR DURR" fools sth to think about. I'll just include this too, for good measure.
@Kenneth Chesney @lungs @InvisibleJim @William @chip @gogo2 @Korpsy Knievel @Rick

. . . when you didn't even mention me here?

[kopyk]

Ah, seems you were a bit too quick for me, Cpig! Well done I guess... I was gonna update that post with a new mention but got sidetracked writing sth. The reason I mention you is cuz I perceive you to be part of this dissenter gang consisting mainly of gammas but also a few others like chip. And while those two posts with mentions doesn't seem to point at anything which definitely proves socionics, it should at least be of interest to skeptic. Gonna @Scapegrace to this topic too.

[Capitalist Pig]

The reason I mention you is cuz I perceive you to be part of this dissenter gang consisting mainly of gammas but also a few others like chip. And while those two posts with mentions doesn't seem to point at anything which definitely proves socionics, it should at least be of interest to skeptic.

Fair enough, but I do not recall ever seeing that thread or your post. pointing that out was just to raise the argument that you have no grounds to accuse me of running away from something without proof I ever might have seen it in the first place.

[Capitalist Pig]

@Ath

Update: Dude, that article you linked from this Lytov character is exactly the kind of bullshit article publishing these so-called Socionics Institutes do, which I've very recently discussed in another thread.

If you want my argument for why I think that "paper" plus any associated "research journals" are bullshit, you can read what I told Jarno the first time this shit was brought up.

[kopyk]

re #12: yeah my mistake. I wanted to provoke action so I sacrificed consistency there. re #13: gonna read thru those topics.

Cpig you may find this interesting. Thread-worthy?

[Absurd]

.................................Why are you mentioning me here.................................


................Why.............................


........................................When you didn't even mention me here.........................?

[Absurd]

[ashlesha]

@Ath i didnt respond because theres nothing to say. i don't think i'm a "skeptic," i just call it a pseudoscience because it is.

[Absurd]

And to think lungs called Socionics a LIE.

[Capitalist Pig]

Cpig you may find this interesting. Thread-worthy?

No. It's just someone trying to sell a book that's apparently not even out yet.

[kopyk]

Actually, you know what? I'm just gonna disregard science, a posteriori, empiricism and maybe rationalism as well except when used for recreational purpose. A priori, anti-realism and solipsism is where its at. A posteriori seems faith-based, making science a religion. Well, I guess it depends on what definition of religion is being used.

To me, logic seems like an absolute. It also seems more "artificial" in a sense than ethics. If one decides to extrovert it i.e. make it then one has relinquished independence. Attempting to subjugate any a priori construct to empiricism (chiefly associated with ) is an act of mental aggression, an attempt at dominating, sterilizing, appropriating for one's own purpose. I'm free of that now.

[Saberstorm]

I think much of model T is an attempt to configure Socionics for use with American style statistical factor analysis, which was stated on one website written by Talanov. As far as I know, he is trying to use continuums because of the math (I don't know, is this to make it work with calculus better? @Ath

[kopyk]

I actually have no idea about model T, Saberstorm. But yeah, that may be. The West is generally receptive to data-driven, dynamic, empiric, profitable, sliding-scale based systems than the opposite. Big 5 is an example, so is this upstart...

@woofwoofl maybe you'll find this interesting in relation to type change, model T that is.

[Saberstorm]

I actually have not seen much from Model T for a while, a few years...

[kopyk]

This would also explain clubs as physiological informational attitudes. This means each jungian dichotomy has physiological content.

Temperaments
I / E - action slow / fast

Introverts accuse extraverts that they do not keep to the schedules thus wrecking chaos. Extraverts accuse introverts of doing everything too slowly.

uno, dos, tres

[Pookie]

hmm so as an IEI i would be

Fast - Fast, Slow - Slow. How revealing!