I do agree that the terminology is a huge barrier, but an information aspect and information element are entirely different things.
Information aspects are sort of where Cybernetics enters Socionics, where information in the environment separate from the individual is categorized and related to by the masses (or by smaller groups or even by individuals using parameters of experience) as pertaining to a specific element.
For instance, as sports, as interpersonal relationships, as astrology or religion. [information aspects]
The information elements are the actual psychological processes that occur within the individual. So Socionics does include psychological processing, but it's main emphasis is ultimately on inter-type relations and how information aspects stimulate the individual sociotype.
The difference between Socionics and MBTI JCF isn't so much the difference between psychological processing and reactions to stimuli, as both systems cover both to varying degrees. It just so happens that MBTI JCF is emphasizing psychological processing for the most part over reactions to stimuli and that Socionics is emphasizing the reactions to stimuli over the psychological processing (for the time being anyways). Both are still present in both systems.
Inclusions, yes. Focuses altered and this is in the majority definitions of the functions in the MBTI and Socionics differences. You're right. Though is emphasis based on direction?
Information Aspects -> Information Elements?
Information Elements -> Information Aspects?
MBTI has different interpretations based on different researchers who formulated their particular understandings of the functions. Keirsey didn't even acknowledge the functions. If we were to derive the definitions of the functions based on chapter 10 of the psychological types by Jung, we'd find that MBTI has a closer correlation to each of the functions definitions as it was set more to psychoanalytical perceptions and judgements of people. Socionics use the same labels but have altered the definitions to suit descriptions of our characteristic attitudes in thought, or rather, patterns of thought.
You missed my point that both are derived from Jung. They miss the big picture by obfuscating Jung's functions and making them unclear, superficial, and contradictory. Having two different types that are derived from the same original functions is nonsensical and superficial. Jung's functions don't ontologically justify their difference because that difference was derived from the same source - Jung's psychological types.
I'm amused that the debate here illustrates the Decisive vs Judicious dichotomy.
@Little_Sticks represents the Decisive side by arguing for , that no matter what the frameworks and models say they are both describing the one unified, concrete process that is happening in reality.
@Oaky represents the Judicious side by arguing for , that the frameworks and models are in discord with each other based on what they essentially say, and that the process happening in reality is up for interpretation and dependent on the viewpoint.
I would say that the models are an approximation of reality. They capture certain aspects of what you can see, and package it into a certain form. And two approximations can be different. And the "reality" of the situation transcends both.
I think the two approximations, MBTI and Socionics, are continuations of each other. For example, I see Si in myself in both systems even though Si is described very differently. They're both just "Si" to me, looking from different viewpoints - magnifying over different areas of the landscape which is Si.
The reality could be... there is a system which applies to the human psyche which happens to draw it into 16 types. Or it could be... there are multiple systems working in parallel in the human psyche that draw it up into 16 types, depending on which of these systems you are referencing. Or it could be... there is no such system operating that Jung and others have described. What we are seeing is not real.
The Socionics definition for functions are not true to Jung, IMO. It takes the same names and some concepts, but it's really describing something different. IMO, MBTI theories stay close to Jung.
The FiNe (INFj) type in socionics reads as an ISFJ e9 to me, maybe some INFP e9s. The NiFe (INFp) type just sounds like an e4. So naturally, I find the NiFe (INFp) description more relatable. None of the socionics functions really fit me well. I don't see Jungian Fi represented anywhere.
"Charlotte sometimes dreams a wall around herself. But it's always with love - So much love it looks like everything else. Charlotte Sometimes - So far away, glass sealed and pretty." - The Cure
I am not convinced that is true. Take the example of Si, that sticks out to me like sore thumb:
I've noticed many attribute strong reliance on long term memory to Si: Finding and applying past precedents, seeking the familiar in the form of conservative and traditional values, even Dario Nardi defined Si dom minds as those governed by repetitive rewiring or "practice makes perfect" - in fact Si is the only perception function that Nardi doesn't relate to a specific mental state (Unlike Ni's "Whole brain zen state", Ne's "Christmas tree" or Se's "Tennis hop").
This would make sense if MBTI was the application of function analysis to David keirsey's work an how he defined SJs. Except that it's supposed to be an expansion of Jung's work, an the one place where I can't find the origin for this definition at all is the work of Jung. What does any of that have to do with the extreme personalization of information and subjective view he attributed to Si doms? Where in his texts is there any clear indication that those are tied to the reliance on long term memory or conservative tendencies?
All of MBTIs perception functions seem to deviate from Jung's description. That is not to say that Jung was right and MBTI was wrong, but simply to say that there are many areas where it doesn't at all seem like they are talking about the same cognitive processes or even describing the same type of person. It might be best to not judge socionics and MBTI by how closely the profile's resemble Jung's, but by how closely they resemble people.
I think the easiest way to show how the two versions of Si refer to the same thing would be to start with a more basic description and then extend it in alternate directions and show how the properties given all somewhat stem from the same phenomenon. Si is how stimuli evoke an inner sensation in the individual.
Though, I'm not saying either description is really accurate, and you may find through such a comparison that various things said about Si simply don't follow.