English socionics обрывки
**
About undestanding IEs as part of “thinking”
I see socionics’ subject matter - information - as Ne topic, but socionics is a science, imho. It describes information pretty formally and rationally, so it is “thinking” field as well. Hence when we use socionics: analyze, comprehend it either theoretically, by talking and thinking about it concepts, or practically interacting with other people, we always use our intuition, in compehension and attention meanings, and thinking/logic, in analizing and conceptualization meanings.
In other words applying socionics we use Intuition and Logic even when expirience ethics or sensing or realtionships in all their ways.
In our approach, Deductive Socionics, we use correspondence between elements of one IM level. TIMs correspond to ETRs and Reinin dichotomies, IEs correspond to Model A functions and their both dichotomies. The correspondence is based on ILE and Ne on each level.
Thus Ne correspond to Programm Function, they share their semantics. One of which is ‘internal reflection of external environment’ - due to Programm F. is extravert and accepting one. Which is really similair to main part of conciousness definition in psychology, at least russian one - “higher form of psychic reflection …”. In other words we imagine and understand the world with our Program function, and this role is similar to Ne semantics even if you aren’t ILE or IEE and understand world through emotions/senses/etc.
btw, Yuriy Klets’kyy here is LIE, and it can probably explain why he sees all the IME through Thinking.
Though socionics is NeTi centric, it describes full variety of pcychic manifistations, which are all indispensible. It does it on its own level of abstraction, where the list is full, but I think it is important to be aware of this level limitations.
And i disagree with biological basis of socioics as well. I think that Information works on its own principles that are described by socionics maths and semantics, therefore socionics is idealistic, not materialistic.
Marco Antonio López Maytorena I like these questions of yours:
“I say that the program was written by nature”
Who is nature? How did it organize itself before emerging in a logical consistent way?
Is nature writing its own program?
Where does that order come from?
I see Socionics with its mathematical structure and formally caused archetypes as analog for sacral geometry of Conciousness.
So this socionics ogranization is immanent to information and conciousness, as geometric forms are immanent to material life.
Btw its similair to I-Tching in this way, are you familiar with it?
“Socionics is what you prefer to “think” about, not about whether you “think”, because everyone by this definition engages in “thinking” about some things.”
I agree with you on this. Also it happens so that everyone can think about everything. Socionics just shows abstract tendencies.
“I don’t necessarily think “thinking” has a reservation in Socionics; generally “excessive thinking” is sometimes associated with Ni, but I haven’t seen it used really anywhere else. Raw sensing also involves the apprehension of power, status and internalization of experience (you can still think about how good that burger you ate was)”
I agree here as well, but i think on some level your conciousness understands (Ne) and procceses the Si information about burger. I’m not sure how to put it english. Do you get my point or should I elaborate?
“Safal Aryal you see but whenever you are rationalizing about the flavor or power you aren’t using “raw” sensing anymore. You can assimilate without thinking that’s how i.e a reflex works. You don’t have to “think” about something being putrified, when you put it in your mouth you just spit it out. ”
I think that you’re right when we look at this from person’s perspective. But from the Whole Consiousness perspective person’s pshyche undestand Si properties of food “beforeconsiousnessly”, but the fact or the process of this undestanding even through sensing emphasizes on Ne in IM.
“It’s not so much rationalizing as much as it is a pre-verbal apprehension of “I like this flavor” or “this sucks” (in fuzzy images or instant reactions)”
I see it as manifestation of IM tacts. Don’t know how you call it in English. It’s a Model A tetratomy which combines 3+5 4+6 1+7 2+8 functions. Aushra said that this is the sequence Model A works, and if look at the IEs these functions correspond to, we see that Sensing works first, then we evaluate what we’ve sensed, then we undestand it, then we think about it.
“Besides this, they describe a general object interaction for each specific IME, but what we are discussing here is a general term to describe the processes whereby which each IME is engaged - so “area of conscious attention” probably fits best.”
That’s why I see Ne as basic IME, “area of conscious attention” is Ne semantics, but it works for all the functions and polirizes to different IME semantics
I think this is a big phylosophical and methodological question.
Firstly we have to decide what do we test. Psyche is not materialistic, information isn’t as well. Why does the socionics use mathematical methods to describe psyche and social realtions? why can it be described that way? I’m speaking of Aushra using combinatorics methods, Reinin using algebraic methods of group theory, and later Churiumov’s researches that find mathematical structures opened by matematicians of 19 and 20 centuries used in socionics.
But we can not to go there and just use the methods psychologists have already developed. Such as using statistics, linguistics, psychophysiology. For example I think psychosemantics can help in this researches. But it is the huge work to do.
Also, when we are speaking about psyche we have to consider numerous amount of factors like culture, family accepted behavior, psychotraumas, education, other expirience. So it is really hard to work, but professional psychologists should know how to test it.
The questions you asked above are really bold
- I think that each of the functions contains more of them which are realted to IE. As you know our aproach states that there is a correspondece between Model A functions and IEs.
If we could test all the particular functions and make a clusters of them, it could test the theory. But i’m not sure how exactly to test it, never digged deeply into psychosemantics to say if it can test this or not.
-
I don’t really know how to test extra/intro of the function, cause all of them exist inside the phyche. The only 2 productive extraverted functions are 6 and 8, so they can be tracked directly. And it is still a big question how to test the function and what is the exact difference between extraverted and introverted ones even in theory. Lest to be misunderstood, I’m speaking about functions dichotomy, not the IE one.
-
I don’t think these functions are really opposite in brain. I see them opposite within Information Metabolism. It can manifest in different interests, emphases, attention offering, generaly speaking it can be tracked in socionics terms and dichotomies. Therefore it makes a loop: can we base on socionics if we want to test it? If we can, so it probably can be done the same way like in the 1st question.
-
I hope statistics could help hereю. Beside using functions test methods we can also test somehow feelings about ITR as well.
**