Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: the internal vs external dynamics of objects

  1. #1
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default the internal vs. external dynamics of objects

    Wow, I've just had something of a Socionics breakthrough. I've always wondered why some Ni types get carried away arguing with or insulting people and end up making the situation worse (at least worse from my perspective). My response is generally something along the lines of "what did you THINK was going to happen?!", and I've wondered how someone with strong Ni could overlook such as significant cause and effect relationship in events.

    I'd attributed it to Te vs. Fe, but I hadn't really thought of it as being a matter of consideration for internal events vs. consideration for external events. They weren't showing a lack of regard for "what was going to happen". They were just more focused on what would happen internally than what would happen externally.

    There's a post about it here. I am making a new thread about it though because I want to keep this topic separate from the topic of discussion in that thread. Here are the high points though:
    • Someone with Fe in their ego block will think primarily of internal events, what's happening (or will happen or has happened) beneath the surface on a level that's not readily observable.
      • Their duals, people with Ti in their ego block need partners for whom the internal events in people/things/situations are a primary area of consideration. They especially need partners who readily express their own internal events. They need partners who will easily express their feelings of frustration without holding themselves back out of a stronger concern for external events.
    • Someone with Te in their ego block will think primarily of external events, what's happening (or will happen or has happened) on a readily observable or measurable level.
      • Their duals, people with Fi in their ego block need partners for whom the external events of people/things/situations are a primary area of consideration. They do not need their partners to readily express their own internal events... they need partners who think in terms of external events instead.
    I feel it worth mentioning that Fe creative types are much less prone to the type of behavior I described than Fe dominant types. For Fe dominants, Fe is their default mode. For Fe creatives, it's what more like what they use to accomplish things (things that are primarily decided through their default mode, Ni or Si).
    Last edited by Joy; 01-22-2008 at 03:25 AM.
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

  2. #2
    Snomunegot munenori2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Kansas
    TIM
    Introvert sp/sx
    Posts
    7,739
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Is that last sentence supposed to read 'Fe creatives'?
    Moonlight will fall
    Winter will end
    Harvest will come
    Your heart will mend

  3. #3
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    lol yes, thank you
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    8,578
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    so basically, due to focus on external dimachinations of an intercongruential systemology with regards to the differential equanimity of pre-abstracted dynamic fields, it can be verified expositively and incorrugably that a Ti type is the dual of an Fe type and vice versa for Te/Fi. your grasp of socionics is truly remarkable, joy.

  5. #5
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default



    Nah, I was just pointing out how internal/external manifests itself in Te and Fe.
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

  6. #6
    machintruc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    3,252
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    external/internal means explicit/implicit.

    or it may mean "explicit, precise information that is processed slower" as compared to "implicit, approximative information that is processed faster"

    Sensing/Intuition was defined like that by some classical socionic russian website. I think that Logic/Ethics is the same thing.

    and are basically the same content of objects : movement, behaviours, algorithms. is explicit movement, whereas is implicit movement.

    external means "reading line by line", whereas internal means "reading between the lines"

    BTW, we don't say "dynamics of objects" but "dynamics of bodies" : an OBJECT is the opposite of a SUBJECT, whereas a BODY is the opposite of a FIELD.

    Personally, I think that the Body/Field thing is related to the E/I thing, whereas the Object/Subject thing is related to the Asking/Declaring thing.

  7. #7
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by machintruc View Post
    external/internal means explicit/implicit.

    or it may mean "explicit, precise information that is processed slower" as compared to "implicit, approximative information that is processed faster"
    I would tend to think that Te is processed more quickly than Fi. Certainly more quickly than Ti.

    and are basically the same content of objects : movement, behaviours, algorithms. is explicit movement, whereas is implicit movement.
    I'd say "activity" or "events" instead of movement. "Movement" sort of makes it sound physical.

    external means "reading line by line", whereas internal means "reading between the lines"
    That's a good way to describe it.

    BTW, we don't say "dynamics of objects" but "dynamics of bodies" : an OBJECT is the opposite of a SUBJECT, whereas a BODY is the opposite of a FIELD.
    Good point. "Body" also sounds physical though. I like to say "in and of itself" as opposed to "in relation to" or "connected to".
    Personally, I think that the Body/Field thing is related to the E/I thing, whereas the Object/Subject thing is related to the Asking/Declaring thing.
    Not sure.
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

  8. #8
    machintruc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    3,252
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Joy View Post
    I would tend to think that Te is processed more quickly than Fi. Certainly more quickly than Ti.
    Do you mean, elements are actually like radio frequencies (i.e. tuning the brain to an amount of complexity of information) ? I thought of that...

    Quote Originally Posted by Joy View Post
    I'd say "activity" or "events" instead of movement. "Movement" sort of makes it sound physical.
    It's like + is physical, mechanic, whereas - is algorithmic, mathematic. i.e. may be perceived either in the context of or the context of .

    Both seem to refer to "movement" or at least some "motion". Motion of bodies means the actual motion, whereas Motion of fields means either the objective mechanical interactions, or the subjective experiences/sensations.

    Quote Originally Posted by Joy View Post
    Good point. "Body" also sounds physical though. I like to say "in and of itself" as opposed to "in relation to" or "connected to".
    In socionics, it's more like a body in physics. But such definition may be relevant. "body/field" is sometimes referred to "absolute/relative".

    Quote Originally Posted by Joy View Post
    Not sure.
    I had started some topic to explain this (be prepared for some heavy stuff) : oldforumlinkviewtopic.php?t=12181 (archive mode)

    It's purely experimental.

  9. #9
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by machintruc View Post
    Do you mean, elements are actually like radio frequencies (i.e. tuning the brain to an amount of complexity of information) ? I thought of that...
    That's not what I was getting at, but I do think that the brain tunes in to different frequencies (information aspects). However, that some are more "complex" than others is simply a consequence of their being about structures, static connections. Picture a tree's network of branches (static connections) vs. the wind blowing (a dynamic thing in and of itself) vs. the wind blowing fallen leaves around (a dynamic connection) vs. the tree itself (a static thing in and of itself).

    These are all external, of course. What I was getting at though was that if you were to build (or consider) the tree's full network of branches in your mind, it would take longer than if you were to consider the direction the wind is blowing.

    It's like + is physical, mechanic, whereas - is algorithmic, mathematic. i.e. may be perceived either in the context of or the context of .
    Yes, though I don't really think of that as Te+ and Te-. I just think of it as Te + Ni and Te + Si. (And I wouldn't classify Te + Ni as being "algorithmic, mathematic" if I had to write a short description. lol)

    Both seem to refer to "movement" or at least some "motion". Motion of bodies means the actual motion, whereas Motion of fields means either the objective mechanical interactions, or the subjective experiences/sensations.
    I disagree that "bodies" have to be physical things.

    In socionics, it's more like a body in physics. But such definition may be relevant. "body/field" is sometimes referred to "absolute/relative".
    Well, a field is indeed relative. But... are there non-physical bodies in physics?

    (Absolute vs. relative almost sounds more like external vs. internal? Or maybe external vs. field. )

    I had started some topic to explain this (be prepared for some heavy stuff) : oldforumlinkviewtopic.php?t=12181 (archive mode)

    It's purely experimental.
    too much right now, I'll keep the link for later
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •