# Post Your Own Descriptions of Information Elements



## NostalgicWizard (May 28, 2016)

I thought it would be fun to post our own personal descriptions of the Information Elements, so we can look into peoples' different systems and how we could adopt them, or find schemes of defining the quadras and Socionics in a whole new way.

So this thread is equally for fine-tuning classical descriptions as much as it is brainstorming what the Information Elements could be on another level. For instance, you can redefine what each quadra should actually be like, or change ethics to a more suitable name, etc. You can post classical descriptions of the Information Elements, or potential descriptions of the Information Elements, whichever you find more interesting. For instance, here's one potential description of the Information Elements I came up with for fun/to see if it could be used:


For it, take into consideration that each quadra focuses mostly on its valued functions:

Serious Sensation Si
Fun/Casual Intuition Ne

ALPHA

Serious Logic Ti
Fun/Casual Ethics Fe

BETA

Serious Intuition Ni
Fun/Casual Sensation Se

GAMMA

Serious Ethics Fi
Fun/Casual Logic Te

DELTA

Serious Sensation Si
Fun/Casual Intuition Ne

_____________________________

This kinda works with people I met. Anyway, post your own personal descriptions of the IEs, whether classical or inventive.


----------



## Toroidal (Apr 14, 2016)

remind me to respond later


----------



## VagrantFarce (Jul 31, 2015)

*Je: Social Function*. This is how we look and operate when socialising, or making ourselves accessible to others - how we build bridges.


Te: Building bridges by being useful, accomplishing tasks, identifying goals, breaking down activity so everyone knows what needs to happen
Fe: Building bridges by "joining the chorus", harmonizing with others, expressing your feelings in an accessible way, or creating spaces where they can be expressed openly

*Ji: Identity Function*: This is how we look and operate when distinguishing ourselves from others.


Ti: Having your own logic, reductionism, internal consistency & contradiction - "this is my game, and it's just the way I play it"
Fi: Having your own emotional register, weighting personal importance, sincerity, charity, selfishness

*Pe: Discovery Function*: This is how we look and operate when discovering new experiences, or exploring new information.


Se: Absorbing the moment, changing with the environment, carpe diem, Just Keep Living
Ne: Discovering new ideas, identifying & suggesting possibilities, wittiness

*Pi: Filtering Function*: This is how we look and operate when filtering and resisting new information.


Ni: Relying on the flow of time, identifying patterns between disparate events. Archetypal and disconnected.
Si: Relying on what is comfortable or familiar, discouraging flights of imagination and attending to the little details that others overlook.

*Alpha*
Anti-serious - jokey, familial, relaxed atmosphere, nothing taken too seriously






*Beta*
Struggle for dominance, ironic and dangerous, posturing, cool and alluring, revolutionary






*Gamma*
The most serious - essentially Objectivists. Resourceful, utilitarian, harsh, selfish, royal, deeply felt






*Delta*
Serious like Gammas, relaxed like Alphas

(I don't actually know any good examples of this, so here's some cats)


----------



## Indiana Jones Fan (Jan 24, 2017)

VagrantFarce, would you consider Schindler's List to be an overall Gamma movie, because I've had that hunch for a while (I've also thought of director Steven Spielberg as Gamma [SEE?] as well). The film focuses on the conflict between selfish self-preservation and, in the words of Wikisocion's Gamma article, the desire "to aim at the broader benefits of decisions, rather than only at those affecting themselves, giving them an inclination for self-sacrifice."


----------



## VagrantFarce (Jul 31, 2015)

Indiana Jones Fan said:


> VagrantFarce, would you consider Schindler's List to be an overall Gamma movie, because I've had that hunch for a while (I've also thought of director Steven Spielberg as Gamma [SEE?] as well). The film focuses on the conflict between selfish self-preservation and, in the words of Wikisocion's Gamma article, the desire "to aim at the broader benefits of decisions, rather than only at those affecting themselves, giving them an inclination for self-sacrifice."


I thin Schindler as a character could be either Beta or Gamma. I think Beta can be self-sacrificial as well, I think that's just a general trait of Ni/Se. 

I also think Spielberg is a Gamma, so I see Schindler's List as a gamma film. He is more-or-less responsible for dragging the film industry out of the niche art houses of the 1970s and into the hugely profitable multiplexes of the 1980s.


----------



## Indiana Jones Fan (Jan 24, 2017)

Very interesting. I know that this is sort of off-topic, but which quadra's values does the film Casablanca embody? I ask this because it (to me, at least) seems to cover similar thematic ground as Schindler's List (World War II-era self-sacrifice). The plot is, after all, about 
* *




a former "isolationist" who who sticks his neck out for no one giving up the opportunity to escape from Casablanca with the love of his life in order to help smuggle an anti-Nazi freedom fighter out of the city to help strike a blow against the forces of evil. It's usually seen as an allegory for the United States' entry into the conflict.




I'd like to apologize for this being somewhat off-topic, but I am a bit curious to see where its style of self-sacrifice lands, in terms of quadra.


----------



## Wisteria (Apr 2, 2015)

Ti - System/Structural logic
Te - Practical logic
Fi - Relational ethics
Fe - Emotive ethics
Si - Experiential sensing
Se - Volitional sensing
Ni - Temporal intuition
Ne - Potentiality intuition

It was all me ride:


----------



## Toroidal (Apr 14, 2016)

Wisteria said:


> Ti - System/Structural logic
> Te - Practical logic
> Fi - Relational ethics
> Fe - Emotive ethics
> ...


Do people actually believe this?


----------



## Wisteria (Apr 2, 2015)

Toroidal said:


> Do people actually believe this?


Well this forum exists so yeah, apparently they do.


----------



## Toroidal (Apr 14, 2016)

Wisteria said:


> Well this forum exists so yeah, apparently they do.


Poor misguided souls. May they find salvation.


----------



## Wisteria (Apr 2, 2015)

Toroidal said:


> Poor misguided souls. May they find salvation.


Are you going to make a response to the thread or were you just going to say that you don't believe in the theory?


----------



## Toroidal (Apr 14, 2016)

Wisteria said:


> Are you going to make a response to the thread or were you just going to say that you don't believe in the theory?


I believe in the theory but those definitions are shit.

The definitions are, well should be, self-explanatory.

Subjective Sensation
Objective Ethics
etc.

Emotive and Relation has nothing to do with subjective and objective dichotomy therefore they cannot be a definition or even explanation for the terms.


----------



## Wisteria (Apr 2, 2015)

Toroidal said:


> I believe in the theory but those definitions are shit.
> 
> The definitions are, well should be, self-explanatory.
> 
> ...


Was that going to be your description, subjective and objective logic and so on? That's like Jung's descriptions, and this thread is about the socionics information elements.

Calling functions objective or subjective doesn't make them self explanatory for most people. I don't like using those terms either because I've seen users on this forum twist and simplify it into false definitions - like Fe/Te is objective so that must mean it's about group think and values.


----------



## Toroidal (Apr 14, 2016)

Wisteria said:


> Was that going to be your description, subjective and objective logic and so on? That's like Jung's descriptions, and this thread is about the socionics information elements.
> 
> Calling functions objective or subjective doesn't make them self explanatory for most people. I don't like using those terms either because I've seen users on this forum twist and simplify it into false definitions - like Fe/Te is objective so that must mean it's about group think and values.


Do you know what subjective and objective mean?

It should be self-evident that if you are going to be using Jung's ideas then you need to understand Jung's definitions. He created these terms after all. It's really illogical how so many people, basically everyone, has failed to understand the meaning of these functions all because they tried creating their own definitions, which would rely on Jung's dichotomy anyways, instead of learning the real definitions.


----------



## Wisteria (Apr 2, 2015)

Toroidal said:


> Do you know what subjective and objective mean?
> 
> It should be self-evident that if you are going to be using Jung's ideas then you need to understand Jung's definitions. He created these terms after all. It's really illogical how so many people, basically everyone, has failed to understand the meaning of these functions all because they tried creating their own definitions, which would rely on Jung's dichotomy anyways, instead of learning the real definitions.


I've read Jung's descriptions. 

Is it illogical to use the definitions of socionics by the founders of socionics? 

This would be a fair argument on the cognitive functions forum where people try to discuss the Jungian cognitive functions, but this is socionics which is a whole new theory developed from Jung's ideas but also their own.


----------



## Toroidal (Apr 14, 2016)

Wisteria said:


> I've read Jung's descriptions.
> 
> *Is it illogical to use the definitions of socionics by the founders of socionics?
> *
> This would be a fair argument on the cognitive functions forum where people try to discuss the Jungian cognitive functions, but this is socionics which is a whole new theory developed from Jung's ideas but also their own.


Yes, because full Socionics is laced with junk and most people have defecto rejected most of Socionics psedo-phyics topics. In addition, most people haven't even read The Dual Nature of Man by Augusta and if they did then they would see her definitions have no logical origin and are just modifications of Jung's terms, which imply that Jung's definitions are still their basis.


----------



## Wisteria (Apr 2, 2015)

Toroidal said:


> Yes, because full Socionics is laced with junk and most people have defecto rejected most of Socionics psedo-phyics topics. In addition, most people haven't even read The Dual Nature of Man by Augusta and if they did then they would see her definitions have no logical origin and are just modifications of Jung's terms, which imply that Jung's definitions are still their basis.


I know it based on his definitions. It's not only based on that though. Socionics is based on the theory about the information metabolism as well. 

Why would Jung's theory have a "logical origin"? They're both theories, except socionics focuses more on the interaction of the psyche with the outside world and the role of each type in their society. 

Why does it matter if it's a modification of Jung's theory? Just because he first came up with the psychological types theory doesn't mean it's the most sound one. Personally I prefer it because the theory seems more realistic and the definitions are more concrete. If you prefer Jung then that's fine with me, and why post on the socionics forum?


----------



## Toroidal (Apr 14, 2016)

Wisteria said:


> I know it based on his definitions. It's not only based on that though. Socionics is based on the theory about the *information metabolism* as well.
> 
> Why would Jung's theory have a "logical origin"? They're both theories, except socionics focuses more on the interaction of the psyche with the outside world and the role of each type in their society.
> 
> Why does it matter if it's a modification of Jung's theory? Just because he first came up with the psychological types theory doesn't mean it's the most sound one. Personally I prefer it because the theory seems more realistic and the definitions are more concrete. If you prefer Jung then that's fine with me, and why post on the socionics forum?



Socionics is de jure _based_ information metabolism. But Socionics is not de facto based information metabolism. It is one of the theories that is not used at all in analysis, e.g. ITR. De facto Socionics is the original work of Jung refined into the 8 function model and used to create ITRs. The system is not independent of Jung and needs Jung's original work to even exist. 

And I don't think Jung's theory is the most sound. De facto socioncis is superior which is why I am here but de jure Socionics is bloated with useless junk and pseudoscience, some of which is actually worse than Jung's original work, e.g. the relabeling of the psychological functions.


----------



## Wisteria (Apr 2, 2015)

Toroidal said:


> Socionics is de jure _based_ information metabolism. But Socionics is not de facto based information metabolism. It is one of the theories that is not used at all in analysis, e.g. ITR. De facto Socionics is the original work of Jung refined into the 8 function model and used to create ITRs. The system is not independent of Jung and needs Jung's original work to even exist.
> 
> And I don't think Jung's theory is the most sound. De facto socioncis is superior which is why I am here but de jure Socionics is bloated with useless junk and pseudoscience, some of which is actually worse than Jung's original work, e.g. the relabeling of the psychological functions.


What is De facto socionics?

They're not psychological functions though, they're the information elements. The terms make sense to me at least. Socionics changed feelings to ethics and thinking to logic so already the functions have been relabelled.


----------



## Toroidal (Apr 14, 2016)

Wisteria said:


> What is De facto socionics?


Anything people actually talk about and do research on. 



Wisteria said:


> They're not psychological functions though, they're the information elements. The terms make sense to me at least.





> Socionics makes a distinction between information elements (facets of external reality) and psychic functions (positions in the socionic model of the psyche).


Socionics - the16types.info - Information Elements: Primer

Socionics has both functions and elements, but no one actually talks about the elements, everyone only talks about the functions. 

For example, TiSe is baking a cake. Ti is the recipe and Se is the ingredients. In Socionics, you need to separate the content of the function from the function itself. In this example its making a distinction between the ingredients as the Se elements in Se functions. 



> Socionics changed feelings to ethics and thinking to logic so already the functions have been relabelled.


Yes, this was one of the good changes.


----------



## DavidH (Apr 21, 2017)

Wisteria said:


> Ti - System/Structural logic
> Te - Practical logic
> Fi - Relational ethics
> Fe - Emotive ethics
> ...


I would probably go with something different than “experiential,” since “experience” is used for dimensionality. Less chance of conflating two separate ideas that way.


----------



## DavidH (Apr 21, 2017)

Objective means it is measurable independent of subject. Subjective, for ease of understanding, is going to be the opposite of such.

This is why when I speak to you all concerning the extroverted and introverted elements, I repeatedly return to the objective being something you can literally point to and say “look, look at that, it is this.”

You can measure movement, speech, orientation, ocular focus, etc. These things are all objectively verifiable and measurable things.

In a more difficult conceptual example: The dichotomies preferences test and subsequent descriptions which are MBTI are not in themselves objective. You cannot measure whether the individual does or does not prefer various things, not that they are being genuine, nor that they are sane well enough to know. However, the answers to the test and the subsequent verification of “yes this type is like me” is itself an objectively measurable thing. What they have stated concerning themselves may be entirely false, however, they have factually made those statements and such statements may be measured.


----------



## Toroidal (Apr 14, 2016)

DavidH said:


> Objective means it is measurable independent of subject. Subjective, for ease of understanding, is going to be the opposite of such.
> 
> This is why when I speak to you all concerning the extroverted and introverted elements, I repeatedly return to the objective being something you can literally point to and say “look, look at that, it is this.”
> 
> ...


Their are major problems with this logic. 

1) Your definitions for subjective and objective do not explain how the blocks operate. What does it mean to pair subjective sensation with objective logic? 

2) The psyche is what separate the person from the environment. It's redundant to use subjective/objective to denote the same distinction and it implies one of these destinations it not real. 

You might want to do research on the origins of subjective and objective. See where the words come from. Figure out what the relationship is between them and then use that to solve problem 1.


----------



## DavidH (Apr 21, 2017)

Toroidal said:


> Their are major problems with this logic.
> 
> 1) Your definitions for subjective and objective do not explain how the blocks operate. What does it mean to pair subjective sensation with objective logic?
> 
> ...


I’m sorry, but you seem to have misunderstood me. I already understand how these things work.

Did you have an actual question you wanted to know the answer to?


----------



## Toroidal (Apr 14, 2016)

DavidH said:


> I’m sorry, but you seem to have misunderstood me. I already understand how these things work.
> 
> Did you have an actual question you wanted to know the answer to?


Explain how subjective sensation works with objective logic vs. subjective logic with objective sensation. I don't mean explain what Ti is or Se but HOW they work together, what does the subjective and objective difference mean in practice.

e.g. Objective logic according to you is something we can point and say "it's real." How does subjective sensation, which in this case would be not veritable data, work or create or influence objective logic, which is verifiable? And what does it mean for someone to prefer objective logic vs. subjective sensation.


----------



## DavidH (Apr 21, 2017)

Toroidal said:


> Explain how subjective sensation works with objective logic vs. subjective logic with objective sensation. I don't mean explain what Ti is or Se but HOW they work together, what does the subjective and objective difference mean in practice.
> 
> e.g. Objective logic according to you is something we can point and say "it's real." How does subjective sensation, which in this case would be not veritable data, work or create or influence objective logic, which is verifiable? And what does it mean for someone to prefer objective logic vs. subjective sensation.


You’re familiar with Carl Jung’s take on extroversion and introversion? Socionics maintains his views on the matter.


----------



## Toroidal (Apr 14, 2016)

DavidH said:


> You’re familiar with Carl Jung’s take on extroversion and introversion? Socionics maintains his views on the matter.


You didn't answer my question and neither do Jung nor Socionics explain answer my question.

Let me rephrase myself. Your definitions of subjective and objective imply that half of every block is unverifiable bs and half is verifiable truth. Does that sound correct? And how does that work with a function such as sensation which is about the acquisition of real world sensations? This is a problem Jung ran into multiple times in his work and his resolution was obfuscation.

There are only 2 solutions:

1) Redefine subjective and objective.
2) Use new term to denote the dichotomy between function pairs.


----------



## DavidH (Apr 21, 2017)

Toroidal said:


> You didn't answer my question and neither do Jung nor Socionics explain answer my question.
> 
> Let me rephrase myself. Your definitions of subjective and objective imply that half of every block is unverifiable bs and half is verifiable truth. Does that sound correct? And how does that work with a function such as sensation which is about the acquisition of real world sensations? This is a problem Jung ran into multiple times in his work and his resolution was obfuscation.
> 
> ...


You’re mistaken. The solution is simply one you do not recognize.

To be extroverted, objective, and part of the psyche, the information element must be responsible for a part of the brain which is responsible for an external state of the individual. Speaking, moving, focus, orientation are each objectively measurable things, with a portion of the brain being responsible for such.

To be introverted, subjective, and a part of the psyche, the information element must be responsible for a part of the brain which is not responsible for an external state of the individual. With no objectively measurable states to measure, the remainder is subjective.

There is information flow direction in Socionics. A block would simply be neural signals moving from the appropriate extroverted portion of the brain to another portion of the brain that is introverted.

The difference in your example between the two is fairly obvious and direct: One is an extroverted element and one is not.

Both Jung and Socionics do directly address this issue; however, that has no bearing on if you understand that both address this issue or if you do not.


----------



## Toroidal (Apr 14, 2016)

DavidH said:


> You’re mistaken. The solution is simply one you do not recognize.
> 
> To be extroverted, objective, and part of the psyche, the information element must be responsible for a part of the brain which is responsible for an external state of the individual. Speaking, moving, focus, orientation are each objectively measurable things, with a portion of the brain being responsible for such.
> 
> ...


Again, you did not answer my question. How does subjective logic interact with objective sensation? And vice-versa, what does it mean when subjective sensation interacts with objective logic? How does data or logic that is bullshit and unverifiable interact with data or logic that is verifiable and truth?


----------



## DavidH (Apr 21, 2017)

Toroidal said:


> Again, you did not answer my question. How does subjective logic interact with objective sensation? And vice-versa, what does it mean when subjective sensation interacts with objective logic? How does data or logic that is bullshit and unverifiable interact with data or logic that is verifiable and truth?


Again, I did answer your question, and I did so directly. You simply didn’t understand it.

You also aren’t correctly wording your questions.

Subjective logic does not interact with objective sensation the same way when one is before the other in information processing as when the order is reversed. This is the same for your second question

When subjective logic, which is the corresponding subjective component of objective logic, which is Work, interacts with the objective sensation, which is a directed sensory effect capable of being observed, in that order processing, you have the pre-motor cortex, which processes and sequences bodily movements, sending neural signals to the ocular cortex, which is responsible for ocular focus. The opposite processing order is simply the opposite direction of movement for the neural signals.

Objective logic is the Motor Cortex, which allows people to objectively work, and subjective sensing is the somatosensory cortex, which is responsible for the experience of sensations as well as classifications of objects.

Furthermore, Socionics also includes +/- versions of each element, as well as the movement of information between elements which do not share a block.

To the unaddressed concern of yours concerning something being true or untrue, the cerebellum works in conjunction with the cerebrum to reduce errors in information processing and environmental feedback.


----------



## Toroidal (Apr 14, 2016)

DavidH said:


> Again, I did answer your question, and I did so directly. You simply didn’t understand it.
> 
> You also aren’t correctly wording your questions.
> 
> ...


This is just a bunch of biological technobabble. You didn't answer my question and side-stepped it by introducing new terms like motor cortex which aren't in the model and were not previously defined. 

Again what is the relationship between subjective sensation and objective logic? Or between subjective logic and objective intuition? This is the core concept of Socionics, the blocks, and you cannot explain how they work. 

The +/- system is a failed attempt at explaining the blocks because it focuses on the individual functions and not the relationship between the two functions.


----------



## DavidH (Apr 21, 2017)

Toroidal said:


> This is just a bunch of biological technobabble. You didn't answer my question and side-stepped it by introducing new terms like motor cortex which aren't in the model and were not previously defined.
> 
> Again what is the relationship between subjective sensation and objective logic? Or between subjective logic and objective intuition? This is the core concept of Socionics, the blocks, and you cannot explain how they work.
> 
> The +/- system is a failed attempt at explaining the blocks because it focuses on the individual functions and not the relationship between the two functions.


I did explain how they work. You simply don’t understand the answer, nor do you like the answer. It is neither Socionics’, Jung’s, nor my own fault that you don’t understand simple concepts. I explained it to you simply, then more complex, then even included consillience.

You don’t understand the concepts of dichotomies nor the concepts of objective and subjective. Thus far, I don’t think you have the slightest understanding of anything necessary to understand Socionics.


----------



## Toroidal (Apr 14, 2016)

DavidH said:


> I did explain how they work. You simply don’t understand the answer, nor do you like the answer. It is neither Socionics’, Jung’s, nor my own fault that you don’t understand simple concepts. I explained it to you simply, then more complex, then even included consillience.
> 
> You don’t understand the concepts of dichotomies nor the concepts of objective and subjective. Thus far, I don’t think you have the slightest understanding of anything necessary to understand Socionics.


I asked you a sample question. How does unverifiable data (subjective sensation) interact with verifiable logic (objective logic)? And ur answer was "muh Motor Cortex, check it out, my deus ex machina solves answers your question. Don't you understand deus ex machina? DEUS EX MACHINA!" Try again.


----------



## DavidH (Apr 21, 2017)

Toroidal said:


> I asked you a sample question. How does unverifiable data (subjective sensation) interact with verifiable logic (objective logic)? And ur answer was "muh Motor Cortex, check it out, my deus ex machina solves answers your question. Don't you understand deus ex machina? DEUS EX MACHINA!" Try again.


And I gave you the simple and correct answer.

Would you like me to go full retard mode so you can understand?


----------



## Toroidal (Apr 14, 2016)

DavidH said:


> And I gave you the simple and correct answer.
> 
> Would you like me to go full retard mode so you can understand?


Again how does unverifiable data work with verifiable logic?


----------



## DavidH (Apr 21, 2017)

Toroidal said:


> Again how does unverifiable data work with verifiable logic?


“Again how does introverted sensations extroverted logic with extrovert logic?”

That’s the question you want me to answer?

Or how about this one you kept asking? (Paraphrased)

“What is the introverted ethics between introverted sensations and extroverted logic?”

The relationship (introverted ethics) between introverted sensations (SEI or SLI) and extroverted logic (LIE or LSE) will be one of the following, subjectively, as introverted ethics is subjective: Conflict (SEI x LIE), Supervision (SEI x LSE, SLI x LIE), or Mirror (SLI x SLE).


----------



## Toroidal (Apr 14, 2016)

DavidH said:


> “Again how does introverted sensations extroverted logic with extrovert logic?”
> 
> That’s the question you want me to answer?
> 
> ...


That is the same question. 

And you didn't answer how the blocks work. You jumped to intertype relationships.


----------



## DavidH (Apr 21, 2017)

Toroidal said:


> That is the same question.
> 
> And you didn't answer how the blocks work. You jumped to intertype relationships.


It is not. That is simply your subjective ethics of the matter.

The blocks only work if they have work in the block. Otherwise, you’d need to find a different descriptor.


----------



## Toroidal (Apr 14, 2016)

DavidH said:


> It is not. That is simply your subjective ethics of the matter.
> 
> The blocks only work if they have work in the block. Otherwise, you’d need to find a different descriptor.


Do you want me to spell this out for you.

Step 1) Define Logic and Ethics
Step 2) Define Sensation and Intuition.
Step 3) Define Objective/Extraverted and Subjected/Introverted

Mix them up and put them into a block. You need to be able to explain how the blocks work using these terms and right now you cannot. Your rational is effectively that each block is half BS unverifiable stuff, half verifiable stuff. That's not rigorous at all and doesn't explain at all how you can derive personality types from that.


----------



## DavidH (Apr 21, 2017)

Toroidal said:


> Do you want me to spell this out for you.
> 
> Step 1) Define Logic and Ethics
> Step 2) Define Sensation and Intuition.
> ...


That is not my rationale at all. You simply don’t understand dichotomies.

Your line of reasoning is extremely slow, yet shows the desire to be fast. You also display a great deal of femininity.


----------

