Field: connections
Object: the things being connected
If you try to analyze it much further it stops making sense.
objects vs. fields
Field: connections
Object: the things being connected
If you try to analyze it much further it stops making sense.
Thanks for demonstrating how you're Ti-valuing.
Nothing that couldn't be found in a decent synonyms and contraries dictionary.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ad.php?t=19603Originally Posted by strrrng
Perhaps, but this does seem to be an area of confusion. Also, if one looked for the meanings of those Socionics terms (especially "field") in a dictionary (s)he'd find FAR more incorrect and misleading answers than not, for the reasons I explained below:
You do realize that most English words have more than one definition/connotation, right? And that the theory was written in a different language and then later translated into English?Ridiculous.
Field: Comic Strip
Object: Thousands of coloured dots
I forgot to put the quippy line that goes with this. You definition of field and object, Joy, sounds like the same thing as static and dynamic. My example is a demonstration of that.
ILE
7w8 so/sp
Very busy with work. Only kind of around.
@Joy: colligate: to bind or fasten together. This is what Ti does - it binds things together into static networks (fields). What you did was give the most simplistic, static definitions of those things, which is characteristic of Ti, because it wants to get to the core/overriding principle, which is typically more simplistic than not.
Yes, the whole static/dynamic, objects/fields, internal/external concept is very Ti in nature.
I very much disagree. (Have you ever met an LII?which is characteristic of Ti, because it wants to get to the core/overriding principle, which is typically more simplistic than not.)
If you want to discuss this further we should start a different topic.
But what is the difference between external dynamics of connections and internal dynamics of connections?
XoX, think of it this way. Fields are subjective by their nature. Objects are outwardly perceivable whereas Fields are constructs created by personal opinions, sensations, etc (hence why all objects are Xe and all fields are Xi). Static is a piecewise manner of looking at things where dynamic is constantly seeing things in moving entireties. That is a very generalized way of looking at it and shouldn't be quoted as an absolute. Finally Introverted vs. Extroverted is whether this perception is internal to the individual or object perceived or whether it is external to the individual or object perceived. So Internal Dynamic of Fields is a subjective vision of the internal state of the whole perception (because this is a perceiving irrational function, not a judging rational function). Hence why Ni is often considered the most abstract and "psychic" function, because it is based on a subjective (internally perceived), insubstantial (internal state) flow or big picture (dynamic). Meanwhile the External Dynamic of Fields is a subjective vision of the external state of the whole perception. So Si is a subjective (internally perceived), subtantiative (externally perceived) flow or big picture (dynamic).
Does this help you at all?
ILE
7w8 so/sp
Very busy with work. Only kind of around.
Fields can exist between things outside of you... they're not necessarily between you and something else.
lol @ you.
who are the people that place the most importance on these definitions? i seem to remember that the entire model that ashton uses is based wholly upon them. true, steve and jriddy are rather fierce proponents of "external dynamics of blah," but who developed the model which depends rather strongly on such a
based oncore/overriding principle
.the most simplistic, static definitions of those things (functional definitions)
wait, i forgot. the ability to effectively describe and make sense of the "underlying principle" is Ni. Ni refers toof course. this is why the ashton model works. he describes precisely the processes by which these definitions -- these highly STATIC and SIMPLISTIC concepts -- come together to form a coherent system and interpretation of socionics.dynamic descriptions of abstract processes
that sounds extremely Te. it almost seems like the entire basis of ashton's model is taking those basic definitions and doing something radically brilliant like BINDING THEM INTO STATIC NETWORKS.
i wonder, by comparison, which of the Ti types on this forum have absolutely no interest in such STATIC, CORE definitions as these. hmm.
discojoe, jonathan, myself, UDP, ifmd, kioshi, snegledmaca, khamelion, and salawa are all Ti types with no interest in these functional definitions at all in interpreting socionics (jonathan might have some slight interest, but if he does it's because he doesn't know how to evaluate all of these ideas and doesn't want to limit his information intake). looks pretty convincing to me: interpreting socionics through the STATIC, CORE augustan definitions is Te.
wait... expat, implied, ezra, rick, munenori, and tereg all do this too.... it must be because deltas are too stupid and moralistic to understand such abstract concepts. especially the Ne types.
Nobody said they were just between you and something else. Nor did I say that fields only exist in people. But fields are about the internal process of connecting things together which is a very subjective process. I think you're switching dynamicism with fields.
ILE
7w8 so/sp
Very busy with work. Only kind of around.
So if we look at the manner in which we classify living things according to kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species, which part of that system is subjective? Which part of the structure of the US government (with it's three branches and whatnot) is subjective?
Fields: connection/relationshipsI think you're switching dynamicism with fields.
Dynamics: activity
?
First of all, I think you're confusing "any organized structure" with a field. An observable and concrete structure is not a field. It is an object. The process of coming to a structure is a field. Applying the process is an objective thing, but creating the process is entirely subjective.
As for your definitions of Fields and Dynamics, I think it suffices to say that I disagree with your fundamental understanding of them.
ILE
7w8 so/sp
Very busy with work. Only kind of around.
The examples I listed were Ti aspects, and my point was that they're not "subjective". I'm not sure how you're defining "subjective", but according my understanding of the definition of the word and my understanding of Socionics, there aren't any information aspects that are inherently "subjective".
However, when used as elements, they all are.
Fair enough.As for your definitions of Fields and Dynamics, I think it suffices to say that I disagree with your fundamental understanding of them.
not that there's anything wrong with that.
ILE
those who are easily shocked.....should be shocked more often
lol @ niffweed...take your overly reductionist INTj bullshit somewhere else. I didn't even bother to finish reading your post after seeing how you cherry-picked various statements of mine, took them out of context, then proceeded to...hey!...colligate them into a nice little crystal lattice-like concept to appease yourself.
I don't consider what you've listed as Ti aspects at all. The process of coming to them, certainly. Their inherent nature, not Ti at all.
I can see that we're talking circles around each other and not actually discussing this. We both understand it in a different way. What a surprise. In any case, listening to you say the same things over and over again and then responding with the same thing over and over again is going to get boring fast. Why don't we agree to have a different understanding of information aspects and leave it at that.
ILE
7w8 so/sp
Very busy with work. Only kind of around.
Yeah, "fair enough" meant that I was agreeing to disagree.
Excellent. Let's ^-^
ILE
7w8 so/sp
Very busy with work. Only kind of around.
On a general level - lighten up. Seriously.
It's the same bitterness that causes you to kick people from the chat who state truths you can't see.
Last edited by Steve; 06-25-2008 at 02:53 AM.
At what point do you make distinctions between living things? How many hierarchies do you create? What separates families and orders?
idk, ask a scientist
The point is that what makes them subjective is that the distinctions, while based of real and observable objective criteria, are still somewhat subjective and arbitrary distinctions. For example, what keeps the Cynognathus from being a mammal (from what I recall) is essentially a reptilian jawbone and the ears. So while Ti does objectively compare these objects, the categories and classifications have an inherent subjective quality. Changes in classification often occur when the changes of data (DNA testing, fossil discoveries) or argumentation (bone structural comparisons) forces a reconsideration of the existing static model.idk, ask a scientist
I see your point.
How do they know that the Cynognathus had stripes?
I would assume that it most likely artistic license and not actual knowledge. I would like to imagine that when the descendants of humankind, or whatever replaces humanity as the purveyors of earth's knowledge, will probably speculate our appearance from our fossilized remains and draw humans with stripes.
this is why you exhaust me.
Last edited by niffweed17; 06-25-2008 at 04:47 AM.
Thank you. I don't see how anyone could deny that Ti types strive to get to that core principle.
why? because he actually wants harmony with people?
I can see why Ti valuers would see it that way. From my perspective it looks like someone diving more deeply than is necessary into things that don't even need to be dove into. I guess we see "the key element" (or "that core principle") as being different things.
At least that's my impression after having been married to an LII and interacting with/observing LII's elsewhere irl and here. In a recent PM to someone I said (edited for clarity), "It's just sort of tiring to deal with miscommunication after miscommunication with *insert LII's name here*... He spins things off in all these different directions and wants me to catch and tie up all of the loose ends it creates. From his perspective I'm sure I was the one who created those loose ends and he simply saw them. From my perspective it's often more a matter of his missing my point." I suppose that particular quote is more about Ne than Ti though.
becuase he tells me that i'm too stupid to understand without essentially acknowledging my information and agreeing to disagree.
"harmony" in an environment where nothing i say is recognized as a sentient thought process is not possible.
frankly if steve has decided that i'm not worth his time anymore, i wouldn't view that as a negative at all.
looks like this thread is turning into my kind of discussion lol...
I don't necessarily doubt your intelligence, I just believe that you're blocking yourself from seeing/experiencing certain things - which is something that should be able to be dealt with.
He appears to be acknowledging this. He's only wants verification that you looked at the world from his (incomplete) vantagepoint. He's not arguing that you should accept his viewpoint, only that it is held by him.
Right, niffweed?
Don't tell him to lighten up. That assumes you have some idea of what he's feeling (you don't) or that you are in any position to tell him how to feel (you're not).
GTFO and take your worthless, arrogant suggestions with you.
Thanks for demonstrating your inability to generate your own arguments and the subsequent reliance on Ashton's List of Insults that results.
Best. Description. Of Ti. Ever. Yes -- it binds aspects together into fields, which are static networks. Brilliant, all of it. This makes it SO much easier to visualize. Thanks.
Last edited by tcaudilllg; 06-26-2008 at 12:12 AM.
lol, nice bs argument, genius. all you do is perpetually demonstrate how pathetically easy you are to manipulate. btw d-d-discojoe, was my description of Ti from ashton?? No?? it wasn't now, was it, buddy? but I guess you don't need a description of what Ti is, right?
get a fucking brain lol
lmao @ your vacuous attempt to be Fi.
Give me a fucking break. Those that truly know me know that I am one of the least arrogant people around. And don't be so quick to judge without any idea of the context/history. I am responding to a general tone of niffweed's that I have observed on numerous occasions recently in chats. And when people provide explanations/reasoning that doesn't resonate with him - he is quick to adopt a rageful tone of voice. It's an underlying tone that's been residing with niffweed lately.
And what's your investment in this? How do you have stake in this, and why does this prompt you to such strong feelings?
It truly amazes me how people selectively focus on information when making judgments about people with total disregard to a sequence of events or context. Maybe you're forgetting the uncountable amount of times I've explained myself, listened to absolutely everyone's point of view and addressed other people's points of view by trying to compare the observations we each share that caused us to come up with our points of view (see my thread "setting it straight"). Maybe you're also forgetting how Niffweed outright dismisses the descriptions I provide of things (including others that happen to have points of view different than his own), and when I HAVE tried to fully explain myself without directly stating truths, and says, "I'm not particularly interested in discussing that right now" or "I think discussing that is useless". I have been beyond diplomatic and welcoming with him, both online and in person, but it just comes to a point where enough is enough, and I react - which is what you saw above. After more than enough effort towards open discussion, if someone is dismissive enough, there comes a point where you just say "You just don't see it" and throw in the towel. I don't really care what Niffweed thinks anymore, I just get annoyed when he negatively affects a group setting such as what's happened in the chat on numerous occasions, the most recent example being me being kicked for saying that Danielle is not ESFp. He can choose not to listen to me; that's his choice, but he can't try to control my interaction with others.
But NOOOOOOOO. It must be that I like to go around declaring truths without explanation - expecting all to accept verbatim or be considered stupid. That MUST be the kind of person I am, that must be the kind of person I've always been on this forum...
Again, take it in context given what I said above. If you're interested I'd be more happy to explain my point of view and compare it with yours, and if so, you'd see that I am more than open to hearing and considering everything. I understand that you may not have been aware of the history here, and I can understand how without that context, what I said could come across as arrogant, but now you know.
maybe this is derived from a frustration at witnessing people being stuck in their ways at the expense of seeing new perspectives??? Not every action is an effect of it, in and of itself; it is a derivative of something else. So, stop looking at a negative sentiment that is conveyed at a specific time interval in a discussion and calling it something it isn't. k?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
