Talk:Information elements

From Wikisocion

I think if you changed the name of the page to 'information element' it would be a lot better.

Personnally I prefer the term 'information element', but Rick seems to prefer 'IM element'. So I created that page to that title. --Machintruc 06:53, 9 June 2007 (CDT)

I'm just going by Augusta's terms: "element of information metabolism" or "IM element." "Information element" was my initial translation of what I now call "information aspect" (exactly what it is in Russian). (Admin 13:08, 22 June 2007 (CDT))

Could someone add to this something explaining the difference between IM "elements" and "aspects"? It just says they use the same symbols, but doesn't say why they're different. Also, it would possibly be useful to add something that differentiates IM elements from "functions." Informally, they're used interchangeably, but technically I suppose they're not considered the same thing. As I recall, "function" has more to do with the ordering in Model A? It's confusing because other typologies use the term "function" in a way similar to "IM element." I believe that in most online discussions, the word "function" is used in place of "IM element." --Jonathan 08:51, 15 June 2007 (CDT)

Information aspects are subsets of information, information elements are information aspects as treated by the psyche. Information elements are attached to functions, which are designated by numbers from 1 to 8. Information aspects are oustide of psyche, and they are not attached to psychic functions. Machintruc 09:16, 15 June 2007 (CDT)

I understand Jonathan's issues and share all of them. "IM element" is a clumsy term that seems like it was made up just to have a name. I've started liking the simpler "function" more. It's a psychic module that performs some function. That makes sense. An "element" is just something that they haven't found a better name for. Then we could say, "when this function is in the 2nd position..." instead of "when this IM element is the 2nd function." Lytov suggested this solution to me at some point, for Russian terminology as well. (Admin 11:26, 22 June 2007 (CDT))

I'm think I'm going to have a cow about this whole terminology issue (on the Russian wiki too, by the way:) "Information element" means an element or component of information. "IM element" means an element or component of information metabolism. If you can think of a better term than "IM element," please suggest one, but "information element" isn't logical. I think we can improve on some of Augusta's terminology, but we can't combine the categories "element of information metabolism" and "information aspect" into one. --Admin 09:11, 19 August 2007 (BST)

What is an element of "metabolism"? Metabolism is just a fancy word for input & output of information. It's superfluous; it's like saying "element of auditory processing" as opposed to "auditory aspect" - they are both just sound. Augusta compared information to energy, but I don't think there is any reason to believe that the aspects are independent of the structure of the human psyche (even if "information" in the abstract sense is). I think you would have to convincingly show that an animal has a type before making such a claim - or better yet, create a physical theory in terms of the information aspects.

If all an IM element is is an aspect that occupies a function, then there is no need for the term. An aspect is simply a generalization of the element as found in all functions of Model A, no more and no less. And this generalization is already represented in the symbol itself. Elements (or aspects) + functions = type, so elements = type - functions. That is really all there is to it. Thehotelambush 16:37, 19 August 2007 (BST)

[edit] Positive/Negative

I think the +/- forms should be considered here. I think hitta has demonstrated them as canon. Tcaudilllg 20:51, 23 October 2007 (BST)

They're certainly close to canon, though theoretically unnecessary. At the very least, the article on plus and minus needs to be developed. --Admin 21:20, 23 October 2007 (BST)

[edit] Beauty and    

I disagree with 'beauty’ being listed as a theme of    . The     function cannot sense 'real’ beauty.     knows the power and force of the matter. The idea of beauty for     comes from the opposing rational function. Any sense of     beauty is purely a superficial quality that comes from     or    

    equates beauty with order and logical but does not know anything else. This is related to a sort of ‘classical beauty’.     knows beauty only as a personal emotion. Only for     is true aesthetical beauty known. For     is expansive and not self-contained. Beauty is for it known within and is brought out. If beauty is a physical quality then, it is a quality that are related to     not    . --Brout 23:03, 1 Feburary 2008 (GMT)

Interesting idea about Ti & Fi. I agree beauty as such is not exactly Se. Se is concerned with what is eye-catching or visually provocative. Thehotelambush 22:12, 9 February 2008 (GMT)

Perhaps beauty is one of those concepts that is loose enough to apply to virtually every information aspect? I would say that if you walk down the street and see a "beautiful person" or "beautiful clothes" in the sense of external beauty and visual impact, that would probably be an     observation. --Admin 09:22, 10 February 2008 (GMT)

[edit]    

reality, being - these I think are too vague to be associated with an information element, not to mention their relevance to    . Thehotelambush 10:53, 1 January 2009 (GMT)

Think of it this way: what is any hypothetical situation meant to contrast against? You have in an experiment controls which are tested against independents. If the dependent variable does not behave as expected, then the hypothesis was incorrect. By any measure, the independent is there whether you like it or not. It is proven. What else do you call it if not -Ne, given that it couldn't possibly be anything else? The absence of possibility is the reality, the immediate being, before oneself. There is no speculation over being; being is settled reality. Tcaudilllg 11:56, 1 January 2009 (GMT)

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. reality = actualized/restricted possibility, so it is primarily an     concept? This is a bit of a stretch, and I might even go so far as to say that intuition inherently deals with the unreal (i.e. something which exists only as potential and not actuality) for the same reasons. Thehotelambush 08:41, 2 January 2009 (GMT)

Oh really? Well, I don't particularly understand how you can be so dense, either. I mean my god, it takes one hell of an LII to actually argue that "independent variables" are not determined reality. I mean my god... do you have any idea what an independent variable is? Do you understand the scientific method in the least? Tcaudilllg 19:56, 2 January 2009 (GMT)

Oh wait, I get it. You don't make any judgements about whether independent variables are real or not; they're "just variables". What use is a scientist who does not attempt to make judgements about reality? A pretty poor scientist, that's what. I can't help but imagine that someone who tests theories on phenomena that they aren't even sure is real, has absolutely no scientific talent of any kind.

Reality is immediate. It is "there". It is being. If it is not "there", then it is no longer reality. Augusta said     was reality, and although I think she erred on that count I understand that one can't just go and say she's wrong without a definite alternative definition for    . Fine, being then. Permanence, impermanence: she did say     was those. Tcaudilllg 20:19, 2 January 2009 (GMT)

I'm with Thehotelambush on this one. I think the terms are ambiguous and I believe they can be associated with any elements depending on the circumstances of their use. Not to do so would rob myriad types of access to mounds of existentialist literature. I'd also like to note that no one is daring to call Heidegger, Sartre or the French bourgeoisie the best representatives of Ne, n'est-ce pas? Romolampkin 08:08, 3 January 2009 (GMT)

A person can have a lot to say about a function without being strong in it. Don't take this theory too literally, or you'll limit your ability to type and to understand how other types work with information. We don't have to try to not piss people off; although there are certainly (glorified idiots) who have claimed that reality is in fact this and that, those views are not widely held. What is the objective answer? It is clear: reality is -Ne. It couldn't be Fi; that's subjective. It couldn't be Ti; that's judgments made about someone. It couldn't be Ni, or Se, or Si: they describe the experience, conduct, and course of reality. Couldn't be Te: that's what happens in reality. Couldn't be Fe: that's the reception to reality. If you put a lightbulb in a lamp socket, and it has power, then turning the lamp on will cause the lightbulb to burn. Everytime. That is reality: the undeniable. Tcaudilllg 08:53, 3 January 2009 (GMT)

Furnish proof that reality is exactly equivalent to a single function and I'll buy it. Until then, it seems like you're missing the obvious point that reality and being can be conceptualized by any function through different means, and are hence too general of descriptors. Romolampkin 09:50, 3 January 2009 (GMT)

I don't have to persuade you. If you will not understand the IM elements, that is not my problem. Reality and being have definite descriptions in the dictionary, you would do well to read them. Tcaudilllg 11:08, 3 January 2009 (GMT)

Actually, since wikisocion articles are based on consensus (see Wikisocion:Policy: You do not own articles), you do have to convince others for your edits to be included. In my experience "reality" is a concept most favored by     ego types (as in "get real" or "wait until you get to the Real World"), which agrees with Augusta's supposed reason for using a circle to represent sensing. I agree with your negative arguments as to why no other function is representative of reality, but what the heck do "independent variables" have to do with the whole of reality? (I can think of a lot of other words that could apply to just about anything, such as "stuff", or "data". Are these     as well?) Or    , as opposed to, say,     or    ? I would like to get more opinions on this until I revert you again, but for now consensus is against you. If you continue to forcibly insert your views in contradiction of consensus, you will be banned. Thehotelambush 00:17, 5 January 2009 (GMT)

Someday a world will be laughing at you over this crap, and when they are you can count on me to rub your face in it. I am looking very forward to that day. I see right through your "strong social constructionist" garbage. In my experience, you haven't demonstrated the competance to understand views which differ from your own, yet are valid. No need to waste my energy then trying to convince you of what you cannot be convinced. I won't make any more edits to any non-supersocion related articles on this wiki -- these are obviously yours, Niffs, and Expat's articles -- I will speak my mind and believe that right now I laugh in your willfully ignorant face. You think you have power? Your Se is showing, dude. ;) Tcaudilllg 03:33, 5 January 2009 (GMT)

Well have fun being delusional and psychopathic...nobody's perfect. :) Thehotelambush 08:20, 6 January 2009 (GMT)

Yeah you keep enjoying those delusional projections about me. I don't care about you personally... I just want to banish these projections from the face of the earth. tcaudilllg 13:36, 6 January 2009 (GMT)

[edit] Template:Extroverted Thinking Themes

Why is reason a part of Te but not Ti? Or what is the distinction that constitutes reason as being a Te theme but not a Ti one? Logos

I agree that reason is probably a logical concept, but not necessarily     over    . I think the word "reason" is just as likely to be used in the context of a     logical discussion as in a     one. --Admin 19:43, 20 February 2009 (GMT)

Yeah, I don't see anything for     over     or vice-versa. Usually     addresses "reasons" for actions in terms of how they best achieve a fixed goal, whereas     defines the goal itself as a "reason". Thehotelambush 04:28, 23 February 2009 (GMT)

Who is more likely to say "listen to reason"?     will talk about "reasons" for things, but I think     is more likely to talk about "reason" as a thing in itself. --Brilliand 23:09, 23 February 2009 (GMT)