u/Eqiudeas

Did you retype yourself? I did. I thought for the longest time, that I was an IEE. Indeed, I showed strong value and ability for Ne at the time, jumping from one interest to another. I was very aware of friend groups, friendships between people, inherent qualities. That was when I was younger, and I did not greet the world, did not face challenges.

As I became older, I think I changed a lot. My worldview shifted multiple times, and I became quite unsure of myself. I always revered destiny, I was always upbeat and jovial. You know how the type you assigned for yourself can affect even your perception, so I felt some ambient discongruence.

Anyways, very recently did I realize I was an EIE afterall, which shocked me. This was the personal motivation to write about Se's perception in the first place. I am ideologically opposed to subordination, even when I was younger, so Se being associated with subordination, exertion of will against others, the fight-like nature did not sit with me. Perhaps this is why I chose a more harmonious Si-valuing type for myself. Sitting as a more mature man, we must be careful in our descriptions because they have affected me. I denied being a Beta quadrant because they seemed too rowdy, too militaristic.

How many Se-types among you initially thought of yourself as a Si-type? How many Ni-types among you initially thought of yourself as a Ne-type? How many among you changed types at all? What was the reason for the initial diagnosis, what caused a revision?

I am going to write about Se again because I want to make my message even clearer. I realize that my writing style is extremely dense, so I will make it simpler. I wish to make clarifications on my original thesis, so that there is no confusion.

Descriptions in Socionics are a hodge-podge of stereotypes. Stereotypes that are affected by our cultural and ideological upbringing. We grow up with certain symbols and their associations, these then re-appear in our thoughts and discussions. When the original Socionists wrote about Socionics, aspects of their upbringing re-appeared.

Se is described as an overtly dominant, oppressive element. Se is seen as all about power, descriptions of Se types read more like characters from a story-book than real people. These people we rarely see in real life. Moreover, Se is almost described as manly element, or associated with it heavily. Descriptions emphasize less the practical nature, but almost seem to tell a story of an image of a man, especially an overbearing one. This has many terrible effects.

Firstly, it reinforces the "boys will be boys" trope. It is not the nature of SLE or SEE to be overbearing or inconsiderate, because SEE and SLE are framework of thought. Real life people that are called "SLE" or "SEE" are almost allowed to be overbearing or inconsiderate because they are "SLE"/"SEE." That's not natural nor inherent, being an asshole is still a moral failure of the individual.

Second, when the practical nature of Se types are over-looked, and gender stereotypes of masculinity is apparent (especially masculinity associated with patriarchical gender norms), it makes real women question themselves. Real women, who are actually SLEs or SEEs because they do not agree with these patriarchical gender norms.

Third, it makes considerate and mature men question themselves, because they disagree with the patriarchical gender norms. These men would have said they are SLEs or SEEs if their practical nature was emphasized, rather than manly stereotypes that persist.

The effect is noticable: people who would have been Se types are assigned another type, then the assholes wear the moniker, play to the stupid stereotypes. We see this, and the stereotype of Se strengthens because our perspective is already polluted.

In the future, for the sake of healthy discussion, let's deconstruct Se. In it's place, a more realistic description, one that does not have cultural or moral baggage attached.

As for my proposal, I see Se as concrete spatial element. From my post "A Tentative Discussion of Information"

"Se types are more likely to play with concrete arrangement, discuss texture, impact, willpower and so gravitate to sports, but also to arts! Indeed, the artistic nature of Se types are so often under discussed, when so many art students are almost assuredly Se ego. Why else do you think good portion of visual arts is about impact and power? Intensity of gaze of Se egos reflect their tendency to perceive the concrete as precisely as it is, the exact space it occupies, it's shape. Their volitional nature is manifestation of their playfulness with concrete properties, to create physical impact for its own sake, somewhat show-offs."

Introduction:

A discussion on the nature of information, and it's role in the world needs to be had. The dialogue will have significant impact on human cognition, machine cognition, animal cognition, but also to Socionics. Socionics is partially Jungian, and partially dependent on Kepinski's theory of information metabolism, the latter I cannot claim I know too well. Recent discussions on information and the information elements (IEs) sparked dormant thoughts I had, influenced by Kepinski's theory. That is, on what information is, tension between energy and information, and a different definition of the IEs in accordance to my theory.

Introduction (dramatic):

Behold the modern age, how the horizon is both dark and bright in the advent of artificial intelligence! What, we humans in flesh bodies, machine-future must come! And in opposition, ourselves to machines, their empty steel visage reflects back our uncertain face! To reckon with machines is to ponder, in mechanism and in earnest, the very nature of our existence! And what better way than to ponder the very abstract nature of information!

So let me dispel you of those dormant thoughts I have had, for those who pay attention, my thoughts can only help you. Perhaps of my audience, you can make a theory even more accurate, even more precise, even more testable, and unlock knowledge of our cognition for the rest of humanity!

We shall discuss what information is, but if you do not understand it upon first reading, I discuss it below in a more digestible manner.

Definition of Information:

Information cannot be seperated from a notion of language.

Definition of Language:

A language has 3 parts: a set of symbols, a construction rule, and an elimination rule.

Definition of Language (abstract):

A language is made out of a set S, a functor A:Set -> Cat and a category X. First, we gather A(S), which is a category (think of an abstract collection of nodes and arrows). Then the language are finite diagrams of A(S) which are also finite diagrams of X.

Definition of Information (again):

Information is simply a sentence in this language. Abstractly, it is a finite diagram of A(S) that is also a diagram of X. Loosely, we simply have means of making and interpreting these sentences.

For example, English can be seen as a language in this manner. First, the collection of words become our symbol state. We then form pre-sentences by arranging words next to each other. But that doesn't make them valid, so we need some kind of eliminator. Mathematics is a language because we have symbols that include variables and math symbols, a very particular way of construction (again, by arranging them next to one another), and then saying which is well-formed sentence or not.

"=1" is formed from arranging "=" next to "1", but "=" as a symbol requires two terms on both sides, so this is ill-formed. "25" can be ill or well formed, because 2 and 5 are symbols after all. In usual context, "25" means 2*10 + 5, but "ab" usually means a*b because they are variables.

In other words, information requires a stringent form, and has a stringent interpretation.

Mechanism of Information:

But why? Why did I come to accept this notion? At the fundemental level, information cannot be seperated from communication. Our eye-cells communicate information about photons to our brain, our ears communicate information about fluctuations in air pressure. Our nose communicates information about molecules in the air. Our tongue interacts with the food we chew. Our skin tells us about warmth, touch, pain. These are all interactions with the environment around us, things that our receptors store in a specific form, that is then shared with our brain. Indeed, the interaction leads to a specific kind of form from possible states (set of symbols), in a valid form that is then sent.

As humans, we communicate through human language. There are sounds, which make words, which make sentences, which make paragraphs. They all have a valid construction (though this is more nuanced in natural languages) which is interpreted almost instinctively by the audience.

In all of these stories, information is but a small part in this dynamic between the observation and the observer. Information requires an observer, some intentional hand to craft them, and it's communicative nature means that they have some intended interpretation. Now, inference of interpretation is not always the correct means, for the truth is, we can infer from what simply is.

Tension between Energy and Information:

In my view, there is a very interesting play between energy consumption and information gathering. For energy and information are both important for survival, but there is a conflict as information requires energy to be processed. It requires energy for the maintenance of more sophisticated information apparatus, and their communication systems. It requires more energy to have greater parts of the cognition on standby for this new information. Always teetering on a balance, how do we explain the provably greater cognition we humans have?

The mechanism is thus; greater efficiency in energy extraction, and greater volume of energy source are two key fundamental advantages. When a species gains more energy per volume, and gains more volume, they are destined to create or fill vast amounts of ecological niches. These two advantages seem to manifest in breakthroughs in food consumption, and social cooperation. The first came from bilateral animals deep in time, whose left-right symmetry gave them a clear front and back end, making them suited to apprehend their energy sources (or so the theory goes.) The second came from chewing, that one of the advantages that early mammals had during the Cretaceous Extinction that killed most dinosaurs is chewing. Chewing is systematically found in mammals in the form of specialized teeth, whereas this innovation is quite sparse in non-mammalian species, and essentially digests the food beforehand. What we humans have is cooking, an obligate use of fire to further digest the food before they even entered our mouths!

In each breakthrough in energy extraction, I propose a simultaneous breakthrough in information metabolism. When there is more energy, the species radiates and proliferates. Now, in the lessening of external pressure, competition is forced between species further, leading to first, a breakthrough in capacity to handle more information, then a breakthrough in division of the larger information load into distinct filters/channels.

On the other hand, organisms that socially cooperate tend to have great impact, for the members of the species that cooperate had greater volume of energy, and so from the above mechanism, a parallel cognitive effort on socialization and organization was developed.

Indeed, the thesis is that a species impact in radiation and dispersal must come from greater effiency in energy extraction, and from greater volume in energy. These beget a more sophisticated and capable cognition.

Regarding Socionics, this is the hypothesis I propose: first, there was the perception element. Then this element split into sensing (concrete) and intuitive (abstract), while a parallel element called organization appeared. The organization element split into ethical and logical elements. Here is the most contraversial part, that the deviation that made humans so impactful must be the causal versus spatial (dynamic vs static) splitting, which pervaded every element.

Information Elements:

So let me describe to you about the IEs within this historical narrative. The reason I chose to describe the IEs in this manner is not entirely to fit so nicely in this history, but because I found their descriptions so lacking.

As to why I favor the causal/spatial axis (dynamic/static) over the extraverted/intraverted is twofold. The actual manifestations of the IEs are less elegantly explained using extraverted and intraverted, such as the nature of Ne and Se being spatial actually finds a strong common ground between them than merely being extraverted does. Because if extraverted, then Se, Ne, Te and Fe must be correlated, but their common ground is in description is much weaker. Secondly, it makes very little sense why perception will be "intraverted", for the reason being it is somehow more internally focused, or that it is more contemplative. But Se is not less contemplative than Si, and what does that make of Ne? In many ways, Ni is much more "real" than Ne, Te can require more inner contemplation than a simpler Ti system. Fe can have nuanced sentiments that require more contemplation than simpler Fi relations. But you, my dear reader, do not understand how much nicely the causal/spatial dynamic explains the IEs, which we shall get to now!

Causal vs Spatial:

Causality is the study of cause and effect, which necessitates passage of time. For the IEs, this means that concrete (sensing), abstract (intuitive), ethical or logical causality will contain information about the causal effect of the senses (Si), causal effect in the abstract (Ni), shifting tides of emotional atmosphere (Fe), measurement of processes (Te.) The manifestations of causality are dependant on their respective domains of S, N, F, and T, but they share a common temporal backdrop.

Space is the study of inherent qualities, in which time seems to have stopped. Concrete space (Se) will discuss power (the capacity to do work), impact, concrete arrangement, shape and texture. Abstract space (Ne) will discuss potential (the capacity to change), conceptual differences, abstract arrangement, perspectives. Ethical space discusses inherent qualities of people, sentiments, relations, and group cohesion. Logical space discusses structure, consistency, cohesion of written information. Suchwise, they are all share a common static-like nature that better explains why S,N,T,F spatial types act the way they do.

Indeed, causal vs spatial dichotomy makes more sense in explaining behaviour. Causal types (SLIs, EIEs, SEIs, LIEs, IEIs, LSEs, ILIs, ESEs) are more focused on understanding the temporal context of their respective domains, it's purpose, applications and mechanisms. Spatial types are more focused on understanding an object in their respective domain, almost for it's own sake. They harbor subliminal creativity and playfulness, with which they discuss impact, ideas, people or systems.

Rational versus Irrational:

As I am running out of time, I will be more brief in the following sections, to perhaps expand upon them if my audience receives me well.

Rational versus irrational, in my mind, is best understood as perception versus organization. Perception being that of concrete and abstract, organization being ethical and logical. See, it seems that social cooperation is too useful, so it exists as a "parallel" framework alongside perception. Therefore, a new mode of thinking to facilitate social cooperation becomes necessary, to facilitate the fundemental nature of organizations.

Organizations as collection of cooperating organisms is no trivial phenomenon. Briefly, they require two components, cohesion and purpose. Cohesion is spatial, purpose is causal, and they further split into ethical versus logical. Ethical cohesion (Fi) aka ethical space, and ethical purpose (Fe) aka ethical causality. Logical cohesion (Ti) aka logical space, and logical purpose (Te) aka logical causality. This need for social cooperation required a cognitive framework to perceive cooperation, the ethical and the logical, cohesion and purpose.

Se and Ne:

Theoretically, perceptive elements who discuss the inherent qualities of concrete or abstract objects, assigning names, adjectives, anything which one can say at that time.

Se types are more likely to play with concrete arrangement, discuss texture, impact, willpower and so gravitate to sports, but also to arts! Indeed, the artistic nature of Se types are so often under discussed, when so many art students are almost assuredly Se ego. Why else do you think good portion of visual arts is about impact and power? Intensity of gaze of Se egos reflect their tendency to perceive the concrete as precisely as it is, the exact space it occupies, it's shape. Their volitional nature is manifestation of their playfulness with concrete properties, to create physical impact for its own sake, somewhat show-offs.

Ne types are more likely to play with abstract ideas, permutations, rearranging and combining different ideas. Their theorization is about finding common conceptual properties for it's own sake, and so tend to speak about similarities between ideas. With capacity to grasp abstractions, they constantly seek new challenging ideas to chew on, new abstract battlegrounds to conquer! If an idea eludes immediate capture, they shift perspective, looking at it from different angles, watching for angles of attack. Indeed, elegant solutions to abstract problems, such as in mathematics, are most prized for these types. And if a problem is conquered, so will the Ne type move onto the next battleground, in constant search of mystery, and so will appear as having multiple interests.

Si and Ni:

Theoretically, elements which perceives context, causality, trajectory, the tidal wave of multiple causes focused to create such effects. Perturbation and reverberation.

Si types seek to understand the concrete relationship between the body and the environment, energy usage, temperature, harmony, with strong instinct of isolating effects to understand causality better. Always attuned to the concrete receptors, monitoring them like a hawk, like the control room people in a nuclear reactor. The environment is always affecting them, so they understand how to change their living environment to completely and wholly suit their needs, how much strength to use, how much strength is left. Aesthetic instinct is well developed, yet can be conservative. Usage of energy is so important, that they exhibit great sense of stamina among the more energetic types, and as such, the most suited for raw survival!

Ni types theorize on mechanisms, the foremost question is always "how did that event happen?" When a description of mechanism for the event doesn't exist, or is not satisfactory, it tends to haunt them like a terrible past. Justifies their abstract interest, for there is always some context, some causal tapestry things live in. Convergence of ideas into a focal point interest them. Lover of history. Lover of philosophy, can make both great scientists and great writers. Deep-rooted reverence for one's past and future, that is, destiny.

Funny observation, not to be taken seriously, but Si types value physical boundary, while Ni types value destiny, ie abstract boundary. In romance, Ni types appreciate or are indifferent to violations in physical boundary, Si types appreciate or are indifferent to perturbations of their destiny.

Conclusion:

This essay has already gone quite long, and is moreso a repository of information than a cohesive argument. I have omitted ethical and logical elements because I have quite a bit more to say, and in the interest of time and space, I must end somewhere.

The main message is the need for a more grounded description of the IEs, of whole of Socionics based less on Jungian divisions that simply exist now, but in the backdrop of the deep-time conflict between energy and information. That causal and spatial help explain the tendencies of the types more cohesively, in a manner that extraverted and introverted simply did not. That I help you understand the elements better, the more exact nature of them, so that you become inspired to build upon my ideas.

Now, perhaps I am being over-dramatic, but Se has been so consistently called as "power" or "volition" and then given some over-masculinized traits associated with it in this community. I want to challenge this notion completely, charging it with gendered assumptions, theoretical and practical unsoundness.

In my mind, this stems firstly from patriarchical view that masculinity must be monsterous, and what is more masculine than the information element that has power in it's purview? That is, a supermajority of authors and community members cannot seperate a theoretical construct of Se from our upbringing regarding gender. This is also notwithstanding the assumption of manliness or womanliness of a type. Why are EIIs written as feminine and SLEs as masculine? Why the unneccesary gendering?

The second accusation is founded on, in my view, completely unsound theoretical grounds of the information elements, something which I have historically written about, and plan on writing about. In short, Se, extraverted sensing ought not be thought of as "extraverted", because that is a term so vague and useless in explanatory power as to almost be crime against truth. It is better thought of as "spatial" and "concrete", spatial being static from static/dynamic dichotomy, and concrete as in sensing. You all have met SLEs and SEEs of all walks of life, and they are quite creative people, with love to discuss concrete properties of things around them, including but not exclusively power.

The third accusation is one complete incongruence with real experiences. By making Se all about power and volition, you will find it completely baffling when one realizes how considerate SEEs and SLEs can be, how much they find joy in day to day living, jewels of life somehow also afforded to Si and Ne valuing types. You will find the assertiveness and willpower of Ne and Si types completely inconsistent. When you see an IEE or an ILE taking the primary charge in a group, those of them who have honed their strength, is it not a worthy sight?

Should whimsy and love of daily life be confined to only one group of people? Should appreciation of power and destiny be locked for another? We say that one will value one over the other in an extreme situation, but indiversity is a sign of trauma, diversity is a sign of prosperity. How can we say we love this theory when it is mired with unconfronted assumptions, unsound grounds, and lack of explanation for the diverse thoughts of people?