Information Theory and the Elements of 6th Sense
In life, we know things by their poles, or opposites. Cold vs hot, loud vs quiet, chaos vs order, light vs dark, gentle vs rough, etc.
With color, we have our 3 primary colors. These 3 primary colors mix to create the dynamic range and sense of color, as well as it’s shades and tints from white and black.
What does this have to do with information? Well in the same way that we experience a range of colors by combining primary colors, our information has essential components that come together to form it’s composition. What do I mean by this?
Well let’s review our senses. We have a range of touch experience, a range of smell experience, taste experience, sight experience, and sound experience.
But what sense would thought belong to? This is another way in which we perceive the world. So we could include thought, and count 6 senses.
Essentially within our conscious experience, thought must borrow from it’s different orientations, polarities or focus. In the same way that to create green, we need yellow and blue.
If a color is closer to white, it is consequently less dark. If something is softer, it is not as rough. If something is much quieter, it is consequently not as loud. The more you move toward one pole, the further you move from the other. These are all very obvious and basic to us, but it’s important to see how this parallels with the polarity of thought.
Basic Dichotomy
When we take in information, we will eventually organize or order that information afterwards. There is another kind of information that we do not organize. It’s our initial perceptions before being utilized, evaluated, or ordered in any way.
Initial, unordered information is called “Irrational”.
Organized information is called “Rational”.
Examples of irrational information are Concrete, and Abstract information.
Examples of rational information are Logic, and Ethics.
(Concrete-Abstract)
(Concrete): Manipulation of, or focus on: objects and their influence rather than an abstraction of the object.
(Abstract): Manipulation of, or focus on: abstractions of objects, rather than the object itself.
Concrete information is focused on the objects themselves rather than the abstractions. This is a great example of the difference between External and Internal information. The abstraction of the object being something that exists internally, or within the individual, rather than obvious in the external world akin to Concrete information.
Internal and External applies to Logic and Ethics as well. External is referring to information that is self evident, factual, or made up of logical axioms. Whereas Internal is referring to something conceptually interpreted, or relating to one’s sentimental charge. Something that is internally known, rather than externally known.
(Logic-Ethics)
(Logic): The observable relationship of an object, despite sentimental influence on a subject.
(Ethics): Information regarding how an object affects the sentiment of a subject.
Ethics is any information regarding a subject’s energetic relationship to an object or scenario, while Logic is information regarding a logical relationship between sets of objects or an object and a situation.
Logic being something externally known, rather than being known internally.
So now we are aware of Logic, Ethics, Concrete, and Abstract information. For each of these they have two counterparts. One which refines, and one which expands.
When Logic expands, it’s focus is situational. What is more efficient depending on the situation? Objects are utilized based on efficiency in that specific instance.
When Logic refines, it’s focus is building a consistent set of principles that are universal, or work in every situation.
When Ethics expands, it’s focus is on the charge of a subject to an object from moment to moment. Think “emotions”. Emotions change from moment to moment. Whereas when ethics refines, it’s focus is more static. Think “relationships”, or “bonds”.
When Abstract information expands, it is splitting apart, diverging into a multiplicity of ideas. When Abstract information refines, it is converging together. Taking many parts or ideas and bringing them into one. When Concrete information expands, it is pushing or seeking to overcome other objects, expanding its influence. When Concrete information refines, it harmonizes other objects’ influence, maintaining a homogenous and balanced relationship between objects.
The term worldview represents how you would see the world if you looked through the lens of this type of information. Whereas the “focal point”, or “action” is the most likely action you would take with this view of the world.
Basic Dichotomy | Worldview | Focal Point (Action)
Abstract | Convergence | Purpose/Meaning
Abstract | Divergence | Exploration
Concrete | Homeostasis | Maintaining
Concrete | Contending | Overcoming
Ethics | Motive/Polarity | Discerning
Ethics | Emotion | Expressing
Logic | Framework | Order
Logic | Utility | Efficiency
Formal Definitions of Information Poles
Concrete
Concrete Contending: Manipulation of objects in favor of expanding influence.
Concrete Homeostasis: Manipulation of objects in favor of maintaining homeostasis between objects’ influence on each other..
Abstract
Abstract Divergence: Focus on abstractions of objects in favor of exploring the multiplicity or branching out of an abstraction or idea.
Abstract Convergence: Focus on abstraction of objects in favor of converging or bringing together the abstraction of ideas into a single point.
Logic
Logic Utility: The observable relationship of an object to a situation or outcome.
Logic Framework: The observable relationship of an object to other objects.
Ethics
Ethics Emotion: Information regarding moment to moment changes of a subjects energetic relationship to an object.
Ethics Motive: Information regarding a subject’s fixed energetic relationship to an object.
A Closing Note on Socionics
The Socionics community has been drifting apart as of late. Branching out in terminology, undergoing changes on many fronts, or by many parties. Decisions have been made by many of these groups to uphold the integrity of Socionics. For example, we keep shorthand that originated from Russian names. As a consequence of seeking uniformity, we look for words that start with the same letters. Rather than choosing the words that most accurately describe these elements. Would it not make sense that the form of Socionics that best describes and illustrates the core concept will win in the end? Be intellectually honest, challenge your views, and be careful with the terminology you use. Finally, do not sacrifice accuracy for continuity. If one party uses a term that describes the element with more depth, the others will follow suit. The Socionics shapes are the best way to label these elements to avoid confusion of terms.
I made several choices when naming these elements. I decided that Senses and Intuition was a poor way of distinguishing these dichotomies. We have held onto them so far, to keep uniformity with the S and N shorthand. However, the best language to describe this dichotomy would be concrete, and abstract. Same goes for “time”.
Ni, is not time. It is not purpose or meaning either. This may be how it manifests, but it is not what it is at its core. Ni is Abstraction Information moving in a convergent manner. Ni is only interested in an idea, so much as it connects to all the other ideas, or objects. This manifests as it considering “How does this tie in with everything else?”, which can be associated with meaning, or purpose. All things converge, through time. And because time is a point of convergence, it can seem as though Ni is time as well.
Same for Ne. Ne is “exploratory”, “potential”, “ideas”. But the truth of Ne is that it is diverging. It is abstract information moving in a divergent manner. Thoughts are not seen in a convergent manner, but more so as their own disparate ideas or thoughts. If Ni seeks to find how the colors tie in or come together in the white center of a color wheel. Ne, would instead be interested in exploring that color, and all of it’s nuance. The focal point more so on variation, rather than unification.
I wrote this document because when I started to finally get a grasp on what the information elements are, I realized the confusion came from basic terms accompanied by an overcomplicated definition. I sought to keep these definitions simple, and accurate. I also sought to make sense of Socionics in a philosophical light. It has until recently existed as a concept, a nice idea, or a means in which to divide people into a taxonomy. I sought to “plug it in” to the rest of the world to a degree. Contextualize it in a simple, philosophical way. I hope that any readers reviewing this gained clarity. I also hope that people would feel comfortable sending this to a friend as an introduction to Socionics, or at least the information elements.
Thanks for reading, and reach out to me if you have any feedback.
