Apparently Model G is "Unnecessary" ;)

Jack came out with a brief video on why Model G is "unnecessary", in his own words.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDdDFlIZ4Js

My response:

As for his choice of critical term, unnecessary: lots of people consider Socionics and typology "unnecessary" in themselves.  So I'd ask, unnecessary to what?  Of course, there are a variety of research programs in Socionics.  Vladimir Ledin addresses this in his paper on some paradigm differences between schools, which is copied on this blog somewhere for reference.  And to certain research programs, say to the School of System Socionics or perhaps equally to WSS, maybe Model G IS unnecessary.  That's because it probably doesn't align with their axioms or assumptions, and it might even require an approach which would force an examination or abandonment of certain assumptions and thus the confidence in those research programs.  Questioning assumptions frightens people like little else since these are often thinly veinly psychological rationalizations for maintaining certain courses of actions that have unconscious payoffs; so Model G may be far worse than "unnecessary" for Jack.  This is separate from whether those assumptions have good reason for acceptance or not, which I can get into another time.  The answer to that is probably mixed.  However, for those researching Socionics from the orientation of the Humanitarian school, Model G seems like a better and more appropriate fit.

I located two main criticisms that Jack makes in the video.

1) Model G is unnecessary because Model A is already virtually doing the same thing.  And he gathers this from the description of the Program function of the ILE.

2) Model G is unnecessary because Model A and information metabolism already strays into energy and behavior, and Gulenko is calling energy metabolism something different.  Funnily enough, we've had this conversation before and Jack has still addressed none of my points.

My responses to those reasons:

1) This particular reason appears comically obtuse, and I consider Jack to be an intelligent person, so that means at least one of three things: either Jack is just a dunce (which I don't think), he doesn't actually research the assertions he makes despite ostensibly buying a whole book to do so, or he is going through the motions of an ideological performance which is almost entirely predictable from start to finish.  I will leave it up to you, dear reader, to make up your own mind on which one or more of these are true.

We really have to read beyond the program function description of the first type to assess the differences between models and paradigms, and it is sad that this has to explicitly be stated.  Even without Victor's book, which doesn't look to be about Model G much at all (and yet Jack makes a video on Model G?), there is plenty of material on Model G on socioniks.net and my blog that makes it obvious what differences exist between Model A and Model G.  First of all, virtually every function other than the program has a clearly different definition, though there are also clear similarities in places, which is to be expected.  We are all doing Socionics after all.  And moreover, the reasons for typing are not just the abstract models we use to analyze and break down facets of the type into discrete parts, but the holistic gestalt images of the types as well.  The gestalt images and their associative content have a lot of similarity and a lot of differences between schools, leading to some different and some similar typings.  Last I checked, Gulenko's convergence with Jack tends to hover around 40%.  So from that alone, I don't know how he could possibly gather that he is already doing what Model G is, but I can gather how he would think that they have some similarities, which is a more sensible and careful assertion.  However, if you read Victor's comments about the Control function, the Brake function, the Creative and Demonstrative functions, the Externalities and Internalities, the energy and brake dichotomies, dimensionality, semi-dual and mirage displacement, the signed information elements, the vertical and horizontal blocks, DCNH subtypes which are even detailed in this book!!!, etc., it is abundantly obvious for even the casual observer that there are key differences between these models and how they are habitually used.  A book could easily be written on these differences alone.  There can't be a good reason for not mentioning this.

2)  This is a trickier point, because there is actually some semantic deception going on here, but I claim it is on the part of Jack.  It may not be intentional, and therefore calling it deception might be unfair.  A better description might be sleepy bad assumptions that have been skating along unchallenged for a while now, in addition to just leaving out certain points and focusing on side issues.

Firstly, Aushra herself seems to admit that information metabolism is really a form of energy metabolism.  From her paper "Две Вертации", "Exactly the way we contrasted energy metabolism and the interaction of two objects in figures 3 and 4, in the following figures we should contrast the informational interaction of two subjects, or at least the informational interaction of an object and a subject. This is what I can’t do yet. Although I know perfectly well how the human psyche (of any type of personality) reflects objective reality, how mental energy is accumulated and used, how information is exchanged with other people. And I can’t give some simple scheme, apparently, because I’m not enough, I don’t see any connecting links. It is necessary to clearly understand the relationship between energy and information metabolism, although the second is a kind of reflection of the first, but at the same time they are both nothing but mechanisms of energy reproduction, only of different energy. Energy metabolism - the reproduction of the physical energy of the body. Informational metabolism is the reproduction of psychic energy, which we divide into mental and vital."  So, in a backwards way, Jack is right: his paradigm already does attempt to deal with traits, behavior, tendencies, etc.  Basically, it attempts to deal with energetic manifestations.  And yet, he calls everything "information", or at least speculatively attempts to refer back to information processing which can only be guessed at via external manifestations.  If Aushra and Gulenko can admit that what is usually referred to as information metabolism is REALLY a form of energy metabolism (and Jack also admits this in a backwards way in his video), then why not take the step to change the name to something more appropriate?  These are, after all, the more experienced Socionists with BY FAR the most practical typing experience.  None of this is to say that information metabolism isn't a legitimate concept or that it isn't useful at all; Gulenko isn't saying this either.  It's just that, it's usually not what you are trying to do when you use that term.

Conflating energy and information is not a trivial matter.  It may be a trivial matter in the particular unprofessional discussion context that Jack frequently finds himself in, but in most scientific or research communities, information and energy cannot simply be uncritically lumped together in the way that he tries to in his video.  In fact, Aushra tried to do exactly the same thing before in her discussions with scientists.  Although she was agreed with on many points, the scientists were baffled by her conflation of energy and information, a confusion only made possible by the discontents of her former paradigm, a confusion that is rarely made anywhere else in the world.  This is a portion of the scientists' response to Aushra: "Having discussed, we came to the conclusion that the theory of IO is really necessary, although we cannot agree with a number of points. We agree with the fact that there is a pattern in the relations between people (individuals). With the fact that, probably, this pattern is revealed by your theory, too. But we cannot accept the presence of biofields and the identity between information and energy in your understanding. Justify."  Indeed, there is no record of her even attempting to justify it, after having been asked to do so.  I wonder why that is?  Some Socionics researchers like Victor Gulenko and myself do not want Socionics to remain forever estranged from real science, which requires us to accept the rigorous conclusions and methods that science offers and to try to keep Socionics consistent with that, instead of remaining in a lofty land of mathematical and metaphysical fantasy.  In keeping with this, we have to realize that serious scientists would rightfully laugh at the idea of energy and information being clumsily treated as the same thing or simply lumped together without any rigorous attempt at distinction in practice.

Furthermore, there is absolutely no reason to treat "information metabolism" as something sacrosanct, reliable or legitimate, either in itself or in its use by Jack.  Before his death, Antoni Kepinski, the founder of the theory, specifically warned that the theory of information metabolism was incomplete.  The concept of information metabolism is quite interesting and sensible in my opinion, and in the opinion of a number of other scholars, in a philosophical or psychiatric context, but this is outside of Aushra's gerrymandering of the concept into Socionics theory with little more than handfuls of non-rigorous allusions.  And as I already mentioned, it isn't even what Jack is trying to refer to when he uses that term, at least in its common meaning on Antoni Kepinski's theory.  In this video on Model G, in the entirety of his blog and his justifications for his typings, Jack doesn't really use Antoni Kepinski's theory at all.  He merely alludes to the concept of information metabolism without rigorously applying any aspect of Kepinski's theories; he just uses Aushra's theories or his own theories that he and his friends came up with, with the label "information metabolism" slapped onto it.  I would bet that Jack hasn't read Kepinski's works on information metabolism; it's hard to track down, and even things that are easier to track down like the differences between Model A and Model G aren't even studied by him.  It seems to be no more than a trophy or amulet of legitimacy that has been grafted on to his theories with duct tape, but is just collecting dust in his cognitive basement in the vein of how little it is used in practice.  And if it were used, which it isn't, Kepinski's information metabolism wouldn't work very well as an amulet of legitimacy or some dogma that must be strictly followed.  That's because, while it is a sensible START to a philosophical construction, a number of scholars have noted that some elements of the theory are unfalsifiable by the scientific method.  Granted, there is lots in Socionics that is hard to make falsifiable, so that's not a good reason to reject information metabolism altogether.  However, it's still not a very firm ground to stand on as a basis.  And it isn't the ground that Jack and his friends stand on; they stand on their own theories about Quadras, and Aushra's theories, with little to no reference to Kepinski's concept.  Lazzy, on Brain's Journey, has probably recently studied more Kepinski and his inspirations than Jack or his friends ever have, which I respect, but I still don't see any firm conclusions there.  Therefore, I think a better and more accurate title to the video, based on what Jack says and Jack's other writings about theory and practice, would be "Information Metabolism Is Unnecessary".  Gulenko's use of energy metabolism is every bit as legitimate, and in some ways is more amenable to scientific scrutiny than information metabolism ever was.

The last rather large confusion I want to address in this vein is that when trying to discredit Gulenko, Jack almost always focuses on these high-flown philosophical issues like energy vs information, completely out of context of the practical methods and implicit knowledge inherent to Gulenko's paradigm.  The fact that he wants to focus on this philosophy is no problem for me, because it's easy to address, but misses most of the crucial points that the issue turns around.  This whole energy vs information is literally one reason (not THE reason) for Humanitarian Socionics and Model G.  If you don't want to accept this reason, then that's okay, but you need to understand that this is a different paradigm from the one you are working in, with a different net of mutually dependent beliefs, holistic gestalt phenomenology, and sets of associative observations and tendencies which constitute Sociotypes (of which TIM and TEM are only a part).  Ibrahim described this difference between paradigms in a nice succinct way in the past when trying to justify his understanding of the LSI type to someone of a different paradigm: "It depends mainly on a long history of typing people according to a coherent understanding of the aforementioned parts of Model A. If we agreed on some typings I could point out how it works in some particular cases. At a theoretical level I would say it's actually the "inert" functions which are stubborn. We strongly reject the 4th function (which is cautious and unvalued), in favor of the 6th function (which is bold and valued). This leads to a kind of stubbornness of judgment."  WSS, Systems Socionics, Humanitarian Socionics, Danidin/Talanov, Stratievskaya, etc., are whole different coherent understandings which cannot be negotiated between simply by taking one principle out of context of the coherent whole (e.g. energy vs information metabolism), and disagreeing with that.  To attempt this is simplistic, myopic and unrealistic, serving more as an attempt to "rally your supporters" into a fruitless dispute than to have any real discussion about the issue that has a chance of going somewhere.  Model G and Humanitarian Socionics have many differences from Model A and WSS, and you haven't even scratched the surface.  I hope you are more interested in having a real thorough discussion in the future, but if not, it doesn't change anything for me.  The dog barks, but the caravan moves on.

---

Here was the previous discussion between Jack and I in which he did not even attempt to answer my points at the end, yet he just repeats his previous positions in his new video:

Jack Oliver Aaron: "Socionics deals with psychological motivation, because psychological motivation is a subclass of information processing.

I would be interested to know how information and energy metabolism complement, without simply overlapping and the use of the word 'energy' being just a gimmick. For instance, if I am I
*ILE-ing in terms of information, what am I doing that is fundamentally different in terms of my energy?

I remain sceptical also because Kepinski already referred to digestion of food as 'energy metabolism', which is straightforward enough, as energy is being metabolised when we digest, respire and egest. What is this 'energy' that 1) isn't to do with digesting food, that is 2) not the same as the information we are metabolising?

and if it is the case that these two systems are truly complementary, then they ought not to occupy the same space. To complement, it should be possible to be one type in Model A and an unrelated type in Model G. I see that @Varlawend has some very divergent opinions now on Sedecology typings, so the issues of the two theories not occupying very different spaces will present themselves more and more.

Yes, why on earth would information and energy, being two completely different things, be described with such uncannily similar categories? That's quite a coincidence
Kepinski's 'energy metabolism' uses quite different categories. The Energy Metabolism Elements are Proteins, Carbohydrates, Fats and various Vitamins/Minerals.

I would like to think Gulenko has a better purpose in this than simply finding a gimmick to give the Humanitarian school a competitive advantage in Kiev.

ooh! will take a look
"It is necessary to clearly understand the relationship between energy and informational metabolism , although the second is a reflection of the first, but at the same time they are both nothing more than the mechanisms of energy reproduction , only different energy. Energy metabolism - the reproduction of the physical energy of the body. Informational metabolism is the reproduction of psychic energy, which we divide into mental and vital." - well, there we go.

indeed
if it were that, I'd be expecting something like diet charts.
"SLEs need extra single-source complex proteins or they will tire out"



Here was my response to him:  "It is very debatable that psychological motivation is a subclass of information processing. Why is the information being processed? That said, I do find enneagram and Socionics difficult to mix, but interesting nonetheless.

As for my typings being divergent, in other Socionics communities that I participate in, a whole bunch of people think your typings are very divergent. WSS and its methods are far from the usual and establishment when it comes to Socionics as well. That's okay, but I'm hardly uniquely divergent here, just divergent from your way of thinking perhaps. Though there is plenty of agreement too. When I analyzed your typings next to Gulenko's, whose methods I use, there is about a 40%-45% convergence rate. That's plenty of agreement and disagreement. With more people it could be closer to 40% or slightly less though. I guess we'll see. And there differences are frequently systematic rather than random.

Regarding energy, I will have a lot to say about that. But I can give a little for starters:
"Historically, the concept of a sociotype is used in two different meanings — narrow, as an innate and unchanging structure, and broad, as the entire socionic substructure of the psyche (see subtypes). However, the type of information metabolism and the type of energy metabolism are usually associated with manifestations of a sociotype in a narrow interpretation, although, of course, the movable shell of a sociotype (subtype, profile, functional state) affects the processes of MI and EM. This influence is being studied, but nevertheless, there is a tradition to talk about a sociotype and its variations, and not TIM and TEM and their variations.

The difference between TIM and TEM. Humanitarian Socionics: The type of information metabolism describes the processes of perceiving information, recognizing and interpreting meanings in it, making decisions and issuing information. However, each of these actions (not to mention the implementation of the solution) requires certain energy costs. In addition, each form of mental activity (ie, function) requires a certain level of activity, which means energy expenditure. It is the patterns and dynamics of these processes that describe the type of energy metabolism.

TIM and TEM are largely interdependent (roughly speaking, if there is not enough energy to launch the function P, then we will not get a business solution), since both of them are manifestations of the same essence - the sociotype. Therefore, the statement that some person has one TIM, and TEM has another, is a blunder. For the same reason, TIMEs, TEMs and their elements are denoted in the same way (ILE, LII, P, E, etc.)."

"The type of informational metabolism is especially important if we strive to study the interaction of people or other social systems, since the interaction itself takes place through the information exchange.

However, the study of the type of energy metabolism is preferable in the sense that we cannot directly study the patterns of information metabolism (TIM) directly, but we can observe the processes and patterns of energy metabolism directly, and in many respects even without special tools (with our own eyes)."

Funnily enough, Gulenko does talk about the relationship of food to various functional states!
So there is something to your quip
How to develop the function of E - the ethics of emotions? Eat foods that tone and excite: spicy, salty, sour, bitter.
How to develop the function F - power sensory? Eat more meat, especially pork and beef. Drink more fluids.
How to develop the function I - intuition capabilities? Eat more eggs, germinated cereals, and other germ-containing foods.
How to develop the function of L - structural logic? Develop a balanced diet for the main components and strictly adhere to it.
How to develop the function P - business logic? Eat high-calorie foods with plenty of fluids. Avoid dry food and snacks while running.
How to develop the function of R - ethics of relationships? Eat more sweet and flour.
How to develop the function of S - sensory sensations? Eat only natural products. Eat moderately, but varied. Give up heavy meats (pork, beef). Replace them with a bird.
How to develop the function of T - the intuition of time? Deny yourself the excesses, sit on a strict diet. Eat plenty of plant and dairy foods.

But, it's much broader than that. Energy exists in the microtransactions within the cell, but also the overall behavior of the system and its efficiency of movement and information processing. There is micro energy dynamics, and macro energy dynamics, just as in physics. You could try to describe energy in terms of the interaction of many atoms, but usually you will just use the macro features of the system in mechanical engineering, for example.

Whenever your body is in some overall functional state (E/R/P/L/F/S/I/T), it is processing information and doing work which processes energy, and the behavior, the work done, that is what is visible, whereas the information is something which has to be inferred

The descriptions, which you guys mention, do reflect information processes of course, so that is why there isn't really a contradiction there

They are processing different information, but it describes how the type behaves in life in their different functional states, using energy relative to their typical constitution to process a certain kind of information

This is what Gulenko means by energy:

"How can a simple listener explain what the most fundamental concepts in socionics are - information and energy? What are the types of information and energy? I will try to formulate the necessary definitions.

Information is a product of the reflection of the psyche of the environment (or, if the psyche is highly developed, of itself). The result of this process is information, knowledge, skills. Energy , in contrast to information, is the ability of the psyche to influence, change the environment (or oneself)."
"Thus, one can know everything (maximum information), but remain inactive (minimum energy) or, on the contrary, be very influential (maximum energy), but do not delve into anything and remember nothing (minimum information).

There are two most important manifestations of psychic energy - motivation (readiness for action) and goal achievement (action itself). A bit like the difference between potential and kinetic energy in physics.

Similar differences can be made in the information. The first kind of information is the content (that is, the content) of the communicative object. The second kind of information is the level of organization (complexity) of the object itself.

The first kind of information is used to determine a sociotype from its texts or some other content. Information, understood as the complexity of the organization of the system, formed the basis of the concept of the dimensions of the socionic model. It is believed that the more complex an element of the model is, the greater the number of dimensions inherent in it."
Though there is far more if you want to get more into that

When a computer processes information, for example, it uses energy (so it is also an energy processor because energy is more encompassing than information, but that doesn't render information unimportant because information is abstract and systematic). It's not different for the psyche/body.



Jack's second response: "Ok, so if the TIM and TEM don't match, would you predict someone with huge energy loss from their information metabolism? I know an SLE with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. Could he be an IEI/EII TEM?

ok, so are you saying the TIM and TEM should align? If that's the case, then they should be part of the same thing we are meant to be looking at. You then say that TEM is more 'visible', I guess you are implying that only TEM shows in our behaviours while TIM does not. If that's the case, then we come to the pitfall of circumstances and how they inevitably contort our behaviours depending on what is viable. An ILE does not always act in the way stereotypical to an ILE. This leads me to the question: WHAT exactly are you looking at to find someone's TEM that is different to what we look at to type TIM? We also look at behaviour in terms of what underlying information metabolism we can infer from the behaviour, looking for patterns and themes. Do you just look at the behaviour? How is that then meaningfully different without making TEM a slave to circumstance rather than values or motivations?

This idea that you can boost different kinds of energy metabolism through eating various kinds of food seems superficially ridiculous. I doubt Gulenko has done any empirical research to make these claims, they are indeed predictive and not simply analytical. It sounds like something a medieval doctor would suggest.

You say energy is different to information in its ability to influence the environment. We already factor that in when typing someone's TIM. We don't treat information as some ghost in the machine that cannot interact with the outside world and influence it. We infer the underlying information, and the ability to metabolise it, as the cause of our ability to influence the outside world in various ways. After all, knowing how to apply something best is to do with information, just as much as the energy to carry it out.

I have yet to see the utility of an Energy Metabolism theory as separate (but interdependent) with an Information Metabolism theory, other than saying that weakened information metabolism is less energy efficient so mentally tires a person more than strong information metabolism. That doesn't require a whole new theory.

When you take information metabolism as the cycle from Looking to Assessing to Deciding to Acting, where is the room for energy metabolism to separately describe phenomena? Would you say information metabolism doesn't form this cycle? Is it limited to the assessing and deciding?

It sounds as though you have reduced information metabolism largely to Intuition and Logic, the abstract 'content' of something and its structure
and have reserved motivation and action, typically Ethical and Sensory kinds of information, for Energy metabolism. I feel that in creating this new theory, you are required to shatter the older theory into two."



My final response, after which Jack stopped responding on these points:  Indeed, TEM and TIM should align as part of the overall Sociotype. As for the focus on behavior: this is what scientists study in most fields. Of course, there is a vast range of behavior available to each Sociotype, including all 8 functional states, but in each case, they have a different relationship to the overall Sociotype. Taking as much as you can about the person into account, they should fit pretty clearly into a Sociotype by behavior. In any case, information metabolism would have to be somehow inferred through behavior anyways, since behavior is what we have access to. Of course, someone being rude does not make them Se-valuing, or being reflective Ni-valuing, or being systematic Ti-valuing. You get my drift.

There are lots of dichotomies through which the type is mutually inferable. Extroversion vs Introversion, Logic vs Ethics, Intuition vs Sensing, Rational vs Irrational, Static vs Dynamic, Process vs Result, Positivist vs Negativist, Central vs Peripheral, these are generally the most common to use in ShGS. They lead to very different appearances and behaviors on all four levels of the communicative space.

As for whether an ILE always acts stereotypically, that depends on your stereotype. They aren’t going be able to disguise being extroverted, logical, intuitive, irrational, static, process, positivist and peripheral for very long, while also disguising all 8 of their functional positions, at least if you know what you’re looking for. It won’t be disguisable in their behavior, but it might be disguising in their informational content, or philosophical writings, or their words in general, because words are used to lie and to self-deceive.
The difference is, instead of looking at abstract informational content often used to determine “quadra values” or TIM, you look at behavior directly and what it shows.

Carl Jung: “You are what you do, not what you say you'll do.”

Victor Gulenko:

“1. "All people are lying," says House in the first series. Do not rely on words. Content analysis, which information socionics are so fond of, is good for researching the style of speech, but not the in-depth type of person being studied. It is impossible to substitute the objective (stable structure of the psyche) with the subjective (verbal formulation, depending more likely on the environment, profession and upbringing).

2. Brainstorm with normalizing. They will give you information to form a hypothesis, but do not trust their conclusions completely. For the trees, they do not see the forest (go from the particular to the general, while the creative act the other way around - first they catch the general picture, and then check it in particular).

3. If the data is inconsistent, collect additional information. House workers even search the homes of patients. In socionic practice this is not possible, but the opinions of other disinterested people will no doubt help you to find out what is being held in silence due to reasons of image or simple negligence.

4. Trust more of the second intuition than the first. Without the first hypothesis can not do, but it only indicates the general direction. The second guess narrows the search to an acceptable scale.

5. Visualize (inside - in your imagination or outside, drawing on the board).

6. Use the comparative method - compare competing hypotheses for key features. We even compile special comparison tables to help differentiate the types more clearly. I used one of them during a long discussion about the type of Tymoshenko (LIE or EIE?).

7. If the situation is critical, do not think, but act. If time does not fit, postpone the final conclusion, but use the breather to look at the situation in a new way. Especially important are analogies and hints from other areas.

8. Refuse cases when the patient has diagnosed himself. In the series, many episodes where House mocks unprofessional clever. In the first series, for example, this is an episode with a patient who spends too much time on the Internet.

This approach advocated by Gulenko is not distinct from values or motivations, but I wouldn’t really agree that values or motivations are best described as “information”. That is a rather abstract and grotesque way of describing them. We remain largely unconscious of our motivations, but our shadow doesn’t, which is why they still show up in behavior.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1SUgrg7m5E
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAdqytOHSE0&feature=youtu.be

Actions tell you more than words, and studying someone’s biography tells you much more than abstractly trying to understand their words. Because through actions, the deep values and motivations come out, even those you can hide from yourself in your own shadow. However, I would regard this as studying energy, not information. You aren’t studying content, but rather studying actions and inferring motivations from those actions. I know that you largely do this, so you probably somewhat agree with me, and that’s one of the reasons we agree on so many typings in the first place. The one’s we don’t agree on aren’t just based on this methodological facet, but based on a different understanding of behavioral patterns, which can always be worked on.

As for food, that was a tiny part of Gulenko’s recommendations. The food alone won’t put you in a functional state, but it will reinforce it with the appropriate behavior. For some it is obvious: E would be fired by exciting and extreme tastes, F by heavy and powerful foods, L by a strict diet, P by foods that give lots of energy and fluids since they help with movement, S with natural products and moderate balance and lighter meats, and T with fasting and avoiding the heavy foods of the material world (religions all over the world do this). I don’t understand the I and R recommendations as much, but presumably he has some explanation behind it. Not sure what medieval has to do with it.

It is true that information can be important to carrying things out; you often need to know how to do something, but it is also possible to do things instinctually and subconsciously (indeed, most things are done this way, our conscious attention involves a small portion of what we do). But knowing how to carry something out (or being able to figure it out) is not the same as spending the energy to actually do that. You can know how to build a computer, but if you don’t have the energy to get the parts and put them together, then you’re not getting a computer. You can know how to treat people properly, but if you are angry or tired or a hypocrite, you might treat them like crap. This is very important, and is especially relevant to the Control function in Model G (Ignoring in Model A). This is a function where we know a lot, but we cannot act on it easily at all. We often use it to coach others.

Well, I haven’t really explained the energy paradigm very much yet; I’ve only given a few tidbits of it because my time is limited. I wouldn’t say ShGS is a whole new theory; it obviously has plenty of overlap and agreement with the previous, but I would say a stronger epistemological basis and a better understanding of patterns of behavior through many dichotomies and functions. But to put it very simply, when you observe someone’s behavior, you are observing energy metabolism, not information metabolism. So, it is actually more direct to focus on energy than information. It is also more scientific.

I would say energy is involved at every step of the process of looking, assessing, deciding and acting; while you are confused how there is room for energy, I am confused how any of it would be possible without energy. Looking requires energy (looking requires attentional mechanisms, getting you into a certain functional state to be able to process the world from the perspective of a certain function), assessing requires energy especially if it is a difficult assessment (just like it requires energy for your computer to do a calculation, some calculations can be done more efficiently on a CPU and some more efficiently on a GPU, etc.), deciding merely sounds like the end point of assessing, and acting is mostly energy because you have to actually perform work and affect something. Information doesn’t affect anything directly; it perhaps affects things indirectly by it being understood, but is inherently relative and relational (introverted). Energy is absolute (extroverted).