# Definition of Information Aspects



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

http://en.socionicasys.org/teorija/dlja-novichkov/aspekty

Irina Eglit (School of System Socionics): "In socionics there are two ways to subdivide information into the information elements [i.e. aspects]. One method is to divide the information about the world on the basis of matter, field, energy and time. The second method is based on a division by principles of external/internal, static/dynamic and objects/field. Definitions of information elements for the latter approach are not accurate, often confusing. We tested the first way of definition - it works, definitions are clear and easy to understand. Hence we are using them. The difference in methods of division of the elements results in difference of TIM identification."

Mainstream Socionics: "The difference between them is that information elements are subjective properties of the psyche, whereas information aspects are objective properties of reality independent from psyche."

"SSS distinguishes between functions and aspects. But do you distinguish between functions and information elements?"

SSS: "Actually we here in the SSS believe that "information element" is just an English translation of the Russian term "aspect". So we actually consider those terms synonyms"

SSS: "The trick is that we believe that there is no information existing outside of the perceiver, hence no information can be independent from psyche. That follows from the definition of the term "information" which we use. We define information as metrics of interaction between the perceiver and the perceived."

School of System Socionics: "People invented a large variety of tables: writing-tables, coffee tables, kitchen and other ones. There are tables with one, two, three, or four legs. Tables are parts of furniture sets: for example, a coffee table and to chairs; or a wardrobe, a sofa, armchairs, a dining-table, and chairs. Tables can be made of wood, glass, plastic, some metal, etc. [When we consider the variety of tables and their types, we compare them with each other, create relations in mind. As seen from the example, relations of objects are needed for some classifying and systematizing purposes, for arranging and generalizing our knowledge.]

Thus, the information macroelement 'objects' (T) is subdivided into two information elements: 'work' (Te) and 'system' (Ti)."

This description corresponds to 'work' (Te, SSS), as well as 'black sensing' (Se, mainstream Socionics), right? They can choose any definitions they want, of course, but there is a relation between N and S which they disregard. For example, we know that SEE is interested in beautiful clothes, cars etc. Are they actually claiming that LIE is more interested in (the exterior of) objects than SEE?

I don't think their definitions of information aspects (which SSS translates to 'elements') work. Do you agree with me? 

Which method do you prefer? Why?


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

Tellus said:


> http://en.socionicasys.org/teorija/dlja-novichkov/aspekty
> 
> Irina Eglit (School of System Socionics): "In socionics there are two ways to subdivide information into the information elements [i.e. aspects]. One method is to divide the information about the world on the basis of matter, field, energy and time. The second method is based on a division by principles of external/internal, static/dynamic and objects/field. Definitions of information elements for the latter approach are not accurate, often confusing. We tested the first way of definition - it works, definitions are clear and easy to understand. Hence we are using them. The difference in methods of division of the elements results in difference of TIM identification."
> 
> ...


Interesting. I think information is knowledge that pass between two individuals or more. It can be about what you perceive this second like a respond to something the other person said and it can be something you got stored in your memory. It can be packaged in different ways depending on your preferred functions. right? the world in itself is just what it is but from the second you start to nitpick stuff out of it and/or manipulate it become information.


----------



## Zamyatin (Jun 10, 2014)

Tellus said:


> http://en.socionicasys.org/teorija/dlja-novichkov/aspekty
> 
> Irina Eglit (School of System Socionics): "In socionics there are two ways to subdivide information into the information elements [i.e. aspects]. One method is to divide the information about the world on the basis of matter, field, energy and time. The second method is based on a division by principles of external/internal, static/dynamic and objects/field. Definitions of information elements for the latter approach are not accurate, often confusing. We tested the first way of definition - it works, definitions are clear and easy to understand. Hence we are using them. The difference in methods of division of the elements results in difference of TIM identification."
> 
> ...


Their definitions are highly compatible with those used by "mainstream Socionics", a term you have yet to explain and understandably bewilders Eglit, as they _are_ mainstream. Their articles and resources are the go-to ones in Socionics for information on dimensionality.

I'm not sure what precisely it is you're having trouble understanding, but given our previous encounters, it's probably fair to say you're misunderstanding practically everything. 

"For example, we know that SEE is interested in beautiful clothes, cars etc. Are they actually claiming that LIE is more interested in (the exterior of) objects than SEE?"

There is a world of difference between liking the aesthetics of an object and studying the objective properties of an object. Those are two entirely different elements.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Zamyatin said:


> Their definitions are highly compatible with those used by "mainstream Socionics", a term you have yet to explain and understandably bewilders Eglit, as they are mainstream. Their articles and resources are the go-to ones in Socionics for information on dimensionality.
> I'm not sure what precisely it is you're having trouble understanding, but given our previous encounters, it's probably fair to say you're misunderstanding practically everything.
> "For example, we know that SEE is interested in beautiful clothes, cars etc. Are they actually claiming that LIE is more interested in (the exterior of) objects than SEE?"
> There is a world of difference between liking the aesthetics of an object and studying the objective properties of an object. Those are two entirely different elements.



Okay, so you have joined the green team, nice. Vladimir Yermak is indeed right about two very important aspects of Model A: 1) definition of 'plus' and 'minus' and 2) placement of the signs in Model A. (which I have mentioned in previous threads)

Does SSS correspond to mainstream Soconics? I don't think so, and World Socionics Society (Peter Bartl etc, Wikisocion) would argue fiercely against that notion. Mainstream Socionics is, according to me, closer to Aushra's original ideas. And their version of dimensionality is not identical to Bukalov's version.

Forget about the aesthetics if that confuses you. Is LIE in any sense interested in the objective properties of objects? Can you provide any examples of this? Why does SEEs buy tons of clothes?


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

Tellus said:


> Okay, so you have joined the green team, nice. Vladimir Yermak is indeed right about two very important aspects of Model A: 1) definition of 'plus' and 'minus' and 2) placement of the signs in Model A. (which I have mentioned in previous threads)
> 
> Does SSS correspond to mainstream Soconics? I don't think so, and World Socionics Society (Peter Bartl etc, Wikisocion) would argue fiercely against that notion. Mainstream Socionics is, according to me, closer to Aushra's original ideas. And their version of dimensionality is not identical to Bukalov's version.
> 
> Forget about the aesthetics if that confuses you. Is LIE in any sense interested in the objective properties of objects? Can you provide any examples of this? Why does SEEs buy tons of clothes?


Actually from my experience it is that SEE gain momentum and energy from sensing stuff and thrive on it. LIE are those who look at all the properties of an object one and one and fall in love with an object based on a its properties. Its like SEE just pick out all the best objects from sensing and LIE do research of information a lot. Se vs Ni. LIE focus longer periods of time on one object and its properties. both are gamma so many similarities of what properties is of importance.


----------



## Zamyatin (Jun 10, 2014)

Tellus said:


> Okay, so you have joined the green team, nice. Vladimir Yermak is indeed right about two very important aspects of Model A: 1) definition of 'plus' and 'minus' and 2) placement of the signs in Model A. (which I have mentioned in previous threads)
> 
> Does SSS correspond to mainstream Soconics? I don't think so, and World Socionics Society (Peter Bartl etc, Wikisocion) would argue fiercely against that notion. Mainstream Socionics is, according to me, closer to Aushra's original ideas. And their version of dimensionality is not identical to Bukalov's version.
> 
> Forget about the aesthetics if that confuses you. Is LIE in any sense interested in the objective properties of objects? Can you provide any examples of this? Why does SEEs buy tons of clothes?


Sure. Let's say a number of people are instructed to look at a shirt. Here are a number of ways people could perceive that shirt.

Fe - That is a very cheerful shirt and it makes me happy when I look at it! (Emotion)
Fi - I love that shirt. (Attitude towards the object)
Si - That is a beautiful shirt, just look at the color and the way it flatters your form. (Aesthetics)
Te - That's a good shirt, look at how tight the stitching is and the quality of the fabric. I could use a shirt like that. (Utility and properties of the object)
Ti - That is a button-down shirt. (Category)

An LIE is absolutely interested in the objective properties of objects. They constantly track two things, the things in their environment and their uses (Te) and their potential (Ne). To do that you need to constantly look at the objective qualities of objects to find things that can be exploited. 

As for SEEs, first given that you're mistyped I'm not sure if the people that you say are SEEs are actually SEEs (ESEs are far more likely to be constantly interested in fashion and clothing) but SEEs do have vital track Si. Vital track functions are rigid and function 7 in particular tends to be rather self-righteous and picky about how things are said or done, expressing annoyance when people "do it wrong" because that demands that they consciously defend their ignoring function. Because of that, it wouldn't be surprising to find some SEEs who are very finicky about clothing.

The bottom line is distinguishing between work and aesthetics makes sense because people can be good at one of those skills while bad at the other. You can find people who have no sense of fashion or developed concept of beauty, yet can easily understand the characteristics of objects they perceive. That's just the cliche of the guy who goes to an art exhibit, looks at a painting, and starts wondering about the type of canvas that was used for the paintings, and when asked for an opinion of a painting responds by saying "well, it's colorful."


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Captain Mclain said:


> Actually from my experience it is that SEE gain momentum and energy from sensing stuff and thrive on it. LIE are those who look at all the properties of an object one and one and fall in love with an object based on a its properties. Its like SEE just pick out all the best objects from sensing and LIE do research of information a lot. Se vs Ni. LIE focus longer periods of time on one object and its properties. both are gamma so many similarities of what properties is of importance.


LIEs can be very interested in systems (Ti), like computers or cameras. But is it SEE or LIE who is interested in fashion (for example)? Is fashion also about energy or space? "SEE just pick out all the best objects from sensing"? You relate objects to Sensing. Objects is Te according to SSS.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

Tellus said:


> LIEs can be very interested in systems (Ti), like computers or cameras. But is it SEE or LIE who is interested in fashion (for example)? Is fashion also about energy or space? "SEE just pick out all the best objects from sensing"? You relate objects to Sensing. Objects is Te according to SSS.


There is more individual difference here if someone buy a lot of clothing. Money is good for it but also what kind of work you are doing, are you a sellsman? SEE in my life just bomb with high sensing value. lol Its quite an experience in itself. LIE have HA Se which I think it very apparent.


----------



## Zamyatin (Jun 10, 2014)

Tellus said:


> LIEs can be very interested in systems (Ti), like computers or cameras. But is it SEE or LIE who is interested in fashion (for example)? Is fashion also about energy or space? "SEE just pick out all the best objects from sensing"? You relate objects to Sensing. Objects is Te according to SSS.


Uh, something as broad as cameras and computers are not Ti. If you're going to try to figure out some behavioral characteristics of certain TIM, you need to start by fixing your definitions.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Tellus, in the context of SSS and your question on SEE, the clothes and such are material possessions. By dressing nice, wearing expensive jewelry, driving nice cars, etc., they are displaying their possessions and force. They don't wear them because they look nice. They wear them to show they have better force.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Also, I'll point out that SSS is mainstream while World Socionics Society is not. The schools in mainstream socionics all have varying differences and opinions on peoples types, which is why they are separate schools.


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

Tellus said:


> But is it SEE or LIE who is interested in fashion (for example)? Is fashion also about energy or space?


Both of them can be interested in fashion. For example, we can say that they both value Ni, which makes them pay attention to developing time-trends (outside of any sensory agenda), and fashion is certainly one of such time related trends. 

Any type can be interested in fashion, but each of them would have different reason for being interested in it. Reason for Si being interested in fashion is different from Se reason for having the same interest.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Jeremy8419 said:


> Tellus, in the context of SSS and your question on SEE, the clothes and such are material possessions. By dressing nice, wearing expensive jewelry, driving nice cars, etc., they are displaying their possessions and force. They don't wear them because they look nice. They wear them to show they have better force.


Do you and Zamyatin agree with SSS (100%) about macroelements and information elements?


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

To_august said:


> Both of them can be interested in fashion. For example, we can say that they both value Ni, which makes them pay attention to developing time-trends (outside of any sensory agenda), and fashion is certainly one of such time related trends.
> 
> Any type can be interested in fashion, but each of them would have different reason for being interested in it. Reason for Si being interested in fashion is different from Se reason for having the same interest.


But I am not asking if they (theoretically) _can _be interested in fashion. Let me put it in another way: Are there more LIE fashion designers or more SEE fashion designers?

Btw, their "valued" and weak Ni corresponds to what they _want_, not what they actually _do_.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Jeremy8419 said:


> Also, I'll point out that SSS is mainstream while World Socionics Society is not. The schools in mainstream socionics all have varying differences and opinions on peoples types, which is why they are separate schools.


That is not SSS's point of view.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Zamyatin said:


> Uh, something as broad as cameras and computers are not Ti. If you're going to try to figure out some behavioral characteristics of certain TIM, you need to start by fixing your definitions.


Cameras and computers are in essence _systems, _which correspond to Ti. LIEs are interested in how they work (Ti) and taking photos/using computers (Te), yes, but they do not care about the appearance and shapes of objects (Se). SSS assumes that appearance and shapes of objects correspond to Te, which is a problem.


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

Tellus said:


> But I am not asking if they (theoretically) _can _be interested in fashion. Let me put it in another way: Are there more LIE fashion designers or more SEE fashion designers?


For starters, interest in fashion is not limited to being a fashion designer and your original question was about who is interested in fashion, and not about who is more likely to be a fashion designer.

Secondly, I never done research on that subject so I can't answer your question. There _could be more_ LIE fashion designers or there _could be_ more SEE fashion designers, I cannot say. There are quite a few Te base actors and actresses whom I find very stylish, fashionable and setting modern fashion trends. 

For some reason you made interest in fashion part of SEE image in your mind, so probably each time you see someone interested in fashion you might think they are SEE and disagree that type with lower Se might have the same interest but for different reasons. This is simply confirmation bias.



> Btw, their "valued" Ni corresponds to what they _want_, not what they actually _do_.


I already said that each type can be interested in fashion for their own reasons, and certainly they would prefer to process this interest through their valued and strong elements, hence the difference they go about it. You keep thinking that it's exclusive to some single element or type and I do not agree with this idea of yours.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Zamyatin said:


> Sure. Let's say a number of people are instructed to look at a shirt. Here are a number of ways people could perceive that shirt.
> 
> Fe - That is a very cheerful shirt and it makes me happy when I look at it! (Emotion)
> Fi - I love that shirt. (Attitude towards the object)
> ...


Firstly, the fact that you so easily accept new theories makes me really question _your_ type. A couple of months ago you completely rejected the SSS theory, and now you swallow it hook, line and sinker . LIE is much more likely.

"An LIE is absolutely interested in the objective properties of objects. They constantly track two things, the things in their environment and their uses (Te) and their potential (Ne). To do that you need to constantly look at the objective qualities of objects to find things that can be exploited. "

LIEs track the _movements_. They hardly notice someone's clothes or hairstyle etc. ILI and LIE wear jeans and a black t-shirt. Why? Because we don't care (although we want to) about the exterior of objects.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

To_august said:


> I already said that each type can be interested in fashion for their own reasons, and certainly they would prefer to process this interest through their valued and strong elements, hence the difference they go about it. You keep thinking that it's exclusive to some single element or type and I do not agree with this idea of yours.


I missed "weak", see edited version.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

To_august said:


> For starters, interest in fashion is not limited to being a fashion designer and your original question was about who is interested in fashion, and not about who is more likely to be a fashion designer.
> 
> Secondly, I never done research on that subject so I can't answer your question. There _could be more_ LIE fashion designers or there _could be_ more SEE fashion designers, I cannot say. There are quite a few Te base actors and actresses whom I find very stylish, fashionable and setting modern fashion trends.
> 
> For some reason you made interest in fashion part of SEE image in your mind, so probably each time you see someone interested in fashion you might think they are SEE and disagree that type with lower Se might have the same interest but for different reasons. This is simply confirmation bias.


lol... _that_ is a sensor's comment... sooo literal. I chose 'fashion' to convey a point!!


----------



## birdsintrees (Aug 20, 2012)

*Thread warning: Please debate this topic without resorting to ad hominems.

Thanks  *


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Jeremy8419 said:


> Can't help you, if you don't let me help you, Tellus. If you resort to defense of your perceived notion of intelligence, no one can ever help you.


_*O.K. - It was a very difficult step to make, actually. That's a move from internal perception to objective external reality.

You: *_When people say things like the last O.K., it makes me wonder if people are retarded.

Do you expect me to interpret your frog comment (post 96)? Try to explain what you meant instead.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

myst91 said:


> No, Si isn't simply about facts and that is not specific to Si either.


I did not say Si is simply about facts. However, I do claim that Si is situated in the temporal lobe:

"Autobiographical memory is a memory system consisting of episodes recollected from an individual's life, based on a combination of episodic (personal experiences and specific objects, people and events experienced at particular time and place) and semantic (general knowledge and facts about the world) memory."



> Subjective side of sensations is Si. Objective side of sensations is Se, not all sensations.


What do you mean by 'subjective' and 'objective'? Aren't all sensations subjective?



> Te is not about deductions specifically either, it's just logic in general.


I have not claimed that Te is only about deductions... but it is not visual like Ti. Te is placed in the front of left brain and Ti is placed in the back of left brain.



> Mentally rotating objects is just that, exactly, nothing more, a skill or module in the brain. It may draw on Ti, Te, other functions and other non-socionics related information processing etc.


The problem is that Socionics divides information into eight groups which cover ALL cognitive processes ACCORDING TO SOCIONICS. 

Fe, Te, Se, Ne are non-visual. Fi is irrelevant... okay, so Ni, Ti or Si.

Let's consider you envisioning a rotating hammer. 

Ni = internal dynamics of fields... something implicit... does not work!
Si = external dynamics of fields.... "between processes"...."internal situation of an object".... does not work! 
"Si: perception of the internal situation of an object
(tangible connections between processes happening in one place and time: how events affect one's inner state; sensations, what one experiences physically)"


Ti = external statics of fields... this is the only relevant information aspect/element
"Ti: perception of an object's position in space
(logical relationships between objects: systems of rules and categories, hierarchies, comparisons of quantifiable properties, logical judgments)"

*This could actually work... but what is the other object? You? An imaginary room?*


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Tellus said:


> _*O.K. - It was a very difficult step to make, actually. That's a move from internal perception to objective external reality.
> 
> You: *_When people say things like the last O.K., it makes me wonder if people are retarded.
> 
> Do you expect me to interpret your frog comment (post 96)? Try to explain what you meant instead.


They consider it an important step and a feat to understand objectivity and subjectivity. Despite others thinking that she and company are intelligent, they aren't, and such is proof. They didn't even apply objectivity and subjectivity correctly, which is why the systems have so many logical inconsistencies. What you basically have with Socionics, is a ton of people with moderate intelligence following a system by people with moderate intelligence, and no one having the wherewithal to realize that the whole thing is just plain stupid. It's like one of those bestselling new age books at the bookstore. Neither author nor reader/believer realizes they are both stupid.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Tellus said:


> I did not say Si is simply about facts. However, I do claim that Si is situated in the temporal lobe:
> 
> "Autobiographical memory is a memory system consisting of episodes recollected from an individual's life, based on a combination of episodic (personal experiences and specific objects, people and events experienced at particular time and place) and semantic (general knowledge and facts about the world) memory."


If you subscribe to the idea that Si is "the memory function" and at the same time you try to use this idea in Socionics too then I don't think we have anything to continue this discussion about. Yes, basically you are trying to create an unverified pattern of how people are by meshing all these different definitions together, which I find pointless. Completely violating the internal logic of the systems you are meshing together, as well. (E.g., the basic tenet of there being types of information element in Socionics does not work with this idea that Si is autobiographical memory containing facts.)

Btw that crappy Lenore Thomson idea on linking brain hemispheres with function has a big problem with assuming that subjectivity or objectivity of functions (the I/E attitudes) have anything to do with brain hemispheres. Example, just because my preferred brand of logic is introverted, it doesn't mean it can only use the right hemisphere. Nah, processing of mathematical logic is actually in both hemispheres too, as an illustration of how I see this.




> What do you mean by 'subjective' and 'objective'? Aren't all sensations subjective?


Nope, sensations are not all subjective. Why would they be? Some are subjective, some are objective. The objective ones anyone would sense in the same way and the subjective ones are sensed by the personal subject. The objective ones are Se, the subjective ones are Si (in Socionics). It's rather weird that you'd apparently think Se is about subjective sensations unless you made a typo or you are using "subjective sensation" in some very different meaning.




> I have not claimed that Te is only about deductions... but it is not visual like Ti. Te is placed in the front of left brain and Ti is placed in the back of left brain.


I'm Ti and I'm not strongly a visual thinker. That I think is unrelated to functions.

The brain doesn't work in this simple way you assume it does, it doesn't simply have specific locations assigned to each function, I recommend you educate yourself on this topic more (outside typology).




> The problem is that Socionics divides information into eight groups which cover ALL cognitive processes ACCORDING TO SOCIONICS.


No, they do not cover all cognitive functioning of humans. These 8 information types are just high level categories of information processing.




> Ti = external statics of fields... this is the only relevant information aspect/element
> "Ti: perception of an object's position in space
> (logical relationships between objects: systems of rules and categories, hierarchies, comparisons of quantifiable properties, logical judgments)"
> 
> *This could actually work... but what is the other object? You? An imaginary room?*


Lol, Ti doesn't simply connect two objects.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Jeremy8419 said:


> They consider it an important step and a feat to understand objectivity and subjectivity. Despite others thinking that she and company are intelligent, they aren't, and such is proof. They didn't even apply objectivity and subjectivity correctly, which is why the systems have so many logical inconsistencies. What you basically have with Socionics, is a ton of people with moderate intelligence following a system by people with moderate intelligence, and no one having the wherewithal to realize that the whole thing is just plain stupid. It's like one of those bestselling new age books at the bookstore. Neither author nor reader/believer realizes they are both stupid.


I wouldn't say that Socionics is "stupid". However, it is too ambitious; the human mind AND information metabolism. 

... so the theory is flawed. Here's a good example of this:

R.K. Sedih, "Informational psychoanalysis" (Conflict Relations)

"Partners usually find each other quite interesting. Among socionists the most wide-spread name for this type of relations is "conflict". This is justified only on low level of interaction when both partners are poorly developed and un-dualized. In this case, partners not realizing it will hit each other's weakest spots. This is a very difficult situation if both of them have to live together, sharing a room for example. Situation improves if even one partner is dualized. In this case partners can affect each other positively and even derive benefit from these relations. This aspect of interaction is satisfactory only if there is tolerance between partners. In socionics, there is a tradition to consider this interaction as the most harsh and uncomfortable for the individual. *My own research has shown, however, that it is almost always not the case. Over many years of studying socionics, I have not found any cases of such classic conflict as described by A. Augustinavichiute. Our observations and some recent theoretical developments suggest that in general this type of relation falls into the same level of comfort as semi-duality and activation relations."*


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

myst91 said:


> If you subscribe to the idea that Si is "the memory function" and at the same time you try to use this idea in Socionics too then I don't think we have anything to continue this discussion about. Yes, basically you are trying to create an unverified pattern of how people are by meshing all these different definitions together, which I find pointless. Completely violating the internal logic of the systems you are meshing together, as well. (E.g., the basic tenet of there being types of information element in Socionics does not work with this idea that Si is autobiographical memory containing facts.)


Firstly, I do not claim that Si is "the memory function". All functions are related to memory... but extroverted functions are most likely NOT related to explicit long-term memory.

Secondly, Socionics information aspects (and thereby also IM elements) cover ALL kinds of information. So there must be a Socionics IM element which corresponds to that descripton (autobiographical memory...) Which one? Socionics S? 



> Btw that crappy Lenore Thomson idea on linking brain hemispheres with function has a big problem with assuming that subjectivity or objectivity of functions (the I/E attitudes) have anything to do with brain hemispheres. Example, just because my preferred brand of logic is introverted, it doesn't mean it can only use the right hemisphere. Nah, processing of mathematical logic is actually in both hemispheres too, as an illustration of how I see this.


I don't agree with Lenore Thomson... and neither does she any more  Processing mathematics is in both hemisheres, yes, but Te and Ti is only in the left brain. You need Ne and Ni as well. The left brain and the right brain are fundamentally different. Watch this video:









> Nope, sensations are not all subjective. Why would they be? Some are subjective, some are objective. The objective ones anyone would sense in the same way and the subjective ones are sensed by the personal subject. The objective ones are Se, the subjective ones are Si (in Socionics). It's rather weird that you'd apparently think Se is about subjective sensations unless you made a typo or you are using "subjective sensation" in some very different meaning.


Do you mean that all people have the same experience of red (qualia, Se)? Or that all people have the same experience of a physical threat (Socionics F)? What do you mean by 'objective' in this context? 



> The brain doesn't work in this simple way you assume it does, it doesn't simply have specific locations assigned to each function, I recommend you educate yourself on this topic more (outside typology).
> No, they do not cover all cognitive functioning of humans. These 8 information types are just high level categories of information processing.


You are missing the point. Internal statics of objects, external statics of objects, internal statics of fields ... there is no other information!!! Socionics claims it covers all kinds of information AND all cognitive processes, since an information aspect always corresponds to an information element. 



> Lol, Ti doesn't simply connect two objects.


Again, you are assuming that statements must be mutually exclusive, which is false.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Tellus said:


> I wouldn't say that Socionics is "stupid". However, it is too ambitious; the human mind AND information metabolism.
> 
> ... so the theory is flawed. Here's a good example of this:
> 
> ...


Except it is. Superstitious about people and their relationships. The "great minds" are simplistic with all of this.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Tellus said:


> Firstly, I do not claim that Si is "the memory function". All functions are related to memory... but extroverted functions are most likely NOT related to explicit long-term memory.


Your reasoning about any connection between the introverted vs extraverted attitude of functions and long term memory is erroneous. The two things have nothing to do with each other.




> Secondly, Socionics information aspects (and thereby also IM elements) cover ALL kinds of information. So there must be a Socionics IM element which corresponds to that descripton (autobiographical memory...) Which one? Socionics S?


No, they don't cover ALL kinds of information. This is just an unproven assumption from your part which isn't even true.




> I don't agree with Lenore Thomson... and neither does she any more  Processing mathematics is in both hemisheres, yes, but Te and Ti is only in the left brain. You need Ne and Ni as well. The left brain and the right brain are fundamentally different.


If you don't agree with her idea why do you use it then? (E.g. where you said: _"Sensations belong to Se (right brain) and Si is indeed about facts (left brain)"_, this is by the way bullshit.)




> Do you mean that all people have the same experience of red (qualia, Se)? Or that all people have the same experience of a physical threat (Socionics F)? What do you mean by 'objective' in this context?


The internal experience of "red" is irrelevant to Se because that experience is subjective. It only focuses on the object's trait that's objectively seen as red by most people. (Light wavelength is also in the range matching that or whatever.)




> You are missing the point. Internal statics of objects, external statics of objects, internal statics of fields ... there is no other information!!! Socionics claims it covers all kinds of information AND all cognitive processes, since an information aspect always corresponds to an information element.


No, you are missing my point. Yes, as I said above, there are other information types. If Socionics claims it covers everything, that's bullshit.

And my point was: these 8 information types are just high level categories of information processing. It does not mean there are no other high level categories beyond these 8. Get that yet?

Having spoken of Lenore Thomson, Socionics for example doesn't cover what she covers, sequential vs holistic.




> Again, you are assuming that statements must be mutually exclusive, which is false.


What statements are you even referring to?...


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

myst91 said:


> Your reasoning about any connection between the introverted vs extraverted attitude of functions and long term memory is erroneous. The two things have nothing to do with each other.


I apologize for a delayed reply.

Explicit vs. implicit... both are long-term memory!



> No, they don't cover ALL kinds of information. This is just an unproven assumption from your part which isn't even true.


If something is not static then it is dynamic.
If something is not implicit than it explicit.
If something is not an object then it is a field.

All kinds of information fit this definition, ACCORDING TO SOCIONICS!



> If you don't agree with her idea why do you use it then? (E.g. where you said: "Sensations belong to Se (right brain) and Si is indeed about facts (left brain)", this is by the way bullshit.)


It was not her idea. BTW, her division of the functions into different parts of the brain was just one way to prove a point.

"it is bullshit" is not a very good argument 



> The internal experience of "red" is irrelevant to Se because that experience is subjective. It only focuses on the object's trait that's objectively seen as red by most people. (Light wavelength is also in the range matching that or whatever.)


Which function deals with the internal experience of red according to you?



> No, you are missing my point. Yes, as I said above, there are other information types. If Socionics claims it covers everything, that's bullshit.
> And my point was: these 8 information types are just high level categories of information processing. It does not mean there are no other high level categories beyond these 8. Get that yet?


No, see my previous comment. (if something is not...)


> Having spoken of Lenore Thomson, Socionics for example doesn't cover what she covers, sequential vs holistic.


Can you explain sequential vs. holistic a bit further?



> What statements are you even referring to?...


For example, if I claim that Si is about facts, then you incorrectly assume that I think Si is not about anything else.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Tellus said:


> I apologize for a delayed reply.
> 
> Explicit vs. implicit... both are long-term memory!


I absolutely do not see a connection between explicit/implicit vs E/I function attitudes. You are trying to connect too many things based on very few principles. That sort of thinking leads nowhere.




> If something is not static then it is dynamic.
> If something is not implicit than it explicit.
> If something is not an object then it is a field.
> 
> All kinds of information fit this definition, ACCORDING TO SOCIONICS!


Sorry, but the number of these dichotomies is really arbitrary. It's also arbitrary to assume that they are actually real dichotomies. Let alone covering every kind of information out there.




> It was not her idea. BTW, her division of the functions into different parts of the brain was just one way to prove a point.


I'm not seeing any point there that's not bullshit.




> "it is bullshit" is not a very good argument


Then good luck proving your point; you can't because it's bullshit.




> Which function deals with the internal experience of red according to you?


Si? Or none of the functions. I don't find this a terribly interesting question.




> No, see my previous comment. (if something is not...)


I hope one day you'll get it then. Because right now you sound too stuck inside Socionics theory.




> Can you explain sequential vs. holistic a bit further?


What's your exact question about it?




> For example, if I claim that Si is about facts, then you incorrectly assume that I think Si is not about anything else.


I did not assume such a thing - I simply meant (and said) that facts orientation isn't specific to Si. Hence it's wrong to talk about Si in this way you did (where you said: "Si is indeed about facts (left brain)").

And where I said, Ti doesn't simply connect two objects, I obviously meant that Ti does not work in that way you assumed it to work.

So you assumed things incorrectly about how I think.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

myst91 said:


> I absolutely do not see a connection between explicit/implicit vs E/I function attitudes. You are trying to connect too many things based on very few principles. That sort of thinking leads nowhere.


I_ hypothesized_ that explicit memory corresponds to "introverted" functions and implicit memory corresponds to "extroverted" functions. You can clearly visualize your parents (Si), right? But can you visualize any aspects of Se?



> Sorry, but the number of these dichotomies is really arbitrary. It's also arbitrary to assume that they are actually real dichotomies. Let alone covering every kind of information out there.


_If something is not static then it is dynamic._
_If something is not implicit then it is explicit._
_If something is not an object then it is a field._
_All kinds of information fit this definition, ACCORDING TO SOCIONICS!
_
The number of dichotomies is not arbitrary: 2*2*2 = 8 information aspects/IM elements!

"...actually real", well, this is a theory so they could have chosen other dichotomies. Can you come up with other dichotomies which fit the cognitive processes?

Do you know any kind of information that does not fit their definition? For example, something which is neither dynamic nor static.

This is the basis of Socionics theory, and there are no intertype relations without the information aspects.



> I'm not seeing any point there that's not bullshit.


Lenore Thomson did not claim that Ti, for example, was placed in the right brain, despite that brain map. She certainly does not agree with any of those theories today, so I do not see the point of this discussion.



> Si? Or none of the functions. I don't find this a terribly interesting question.


No, qualia belongs to Se. If you're not interested then I will certainly not waste your or my time.



> I hope one day you'll get it then. Because right now you sound too stuck inside Socionics theory.


OMG !!!

My point is that Socionics IS flawed!


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

I: "I hypothesized that explicit memory corresponds to "introverted" functions and implicit memory corresponds to "extroverted" functions."

This is clearly incorrect.

Declarative Memory (Explicit Memory) and Procedural Memory (Implicit Memory) - Types of Memory - The Human Memory

_"Procedural memory (“knowing how”) is the unconscious memory of skills and how to do things, particularly the use of objects or movements of the body, such as tying a shoelace, playing a guitar or riding a bike. These memories are typically acquired through repetition and practice, and are composed of automatic sensorimotor behaviours that are so deeply embedded that we are no longer aware of them. Once learned, these "body memories" allow us to carry out ordinary motor actions more or less automatically. Procedural memory is sometimes referred to as implicit memory, because previous experiences aid in the performance of a task without explicit and conscious awareness of these previous experiences, although it is more properly a subset of implicit memory."_

Here's another suggestion: extroverted functions are related to semantic memory and introverted functions are related to episodic memory.

Te is about facts, not Si!!! Socionics is right and MBTI is wrong about this.

http://www.human-memory.net/types_episodic.html


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Tellus said:


> I_ hypothesized_ that explicit memory corresponds to "introverted" functions and implicit memory corresponds to "extroverted" functions. You can clearly visualize your parents (Si), right? But can you visualize any aspects of Se?


Visualizing my parents is not Si.

Yes, I can see in my mind a physical object's static external properties, which is Se information.




> "...actually real", well, this is a theory so they could have chosen other dichotomies. Can you come up with other dichotomies which fit the cognitive processes?


This sounds like you think you have a way to directly separate and point at each cognitive process and that by doing so, you proved there is exactly 8 of them. I doubt that 

Or you mean cognitive processes just in general, regardless of whether socionics-related or not?




> Do you know any kind of information that does not fit their definition? For example, something which is neither dynamic nor static.


Yes, when something has both dynamic and static elements, or when it cannot be determined whether it's dynamic or static. This happens pretty often.




> This is the basis of Socionics theory, and there are no intertype relations without the information aspects.


Should I worry that maybe actual reality has a bit more to it than ITR? 




> Lenore Thomson did not claim that Ti, for example, was placed in the right brain, despite that brain map. She certainly does not agree with any of those theories today, so I do not see the point of this discussion.


I brought it up because you yourself relied on it in your post I originally responded to. Glad if you no longer subscribe to it since then.




> No, qualia belongs to Se. If you're not interested then I will certainly not waste your or my time.


If Se is qualia then why do you think Se aspects can't be visualized? 




> OMG !!!
> 
> My point is that Socionics IS flawed!


Was it? Then why do you stick to using its flawed ideas?

I guess I'm not very well following which ideas you believe in and which ones you don't. 




Tellus said:


> I: "I hypothesized that explicit memory corresponds to "introverted" functions and implicit memory corresponds to "extroverted" functions."
> 
> This is clearly incorrect.


Told ya so. 




> Here's another suggestion: extroverted functions are related to semantic memory and introverted functions are related to episodic memory.


NO.

Why do you have this burning need to connect various concepts together without it clearly leading anywhere 




> Te is about facts, not Si!!! Socionics is right and MBTI is wrong about this.


"Facts" is mostly external IEs, it's certainly not exclusive to Si, that's for sure.


----------

