# Thread: External Statics w/o field or object

1. ## External Statics w/o field or object

Can someone go abouts explaining or showing me a description of the four element types that don't include the field or object part?

Extroverted Ti is really Se, because they are both External Statics. but for every object there is a field, or visa versa, so you should easily be able to describe what an external static is without reference to objects or fields. or describe internal statics, or external dynamics, without reference to objects or fields.

I'm mostly having trouble with what the definition of internal and external are, and in terms of statics and dynamics also.

2. external/internal and static/dynamic is like a compound version of object/field. compound relations between either objects or fields need two descriptors. external/internal and static/dynamic don't exist without eachother. one immediately creates the need for the other. it starts with 2 distinctions, object and field. 2 2s then become 4.. that is static/dynamic & external/internal, 2 4s are 8.. that is functions or you can call it 4 2s. 4 4s or 2 8s next, it gets very confusing.. confusing is why we are ignoring 1 altogether. and that is only considering a dual progression. you could really progress any way you want. 3, 9, etc.

3. I am so horny for less of this.

4. lol

5. .

6. That's pretty good Diana.

7. It's basically the internal/external part I don't understand from your explanation. How am I supposed to know if I'm pulling information directly or indirectly and if its hidden or not?

8. As I understand it, external would be things that can be strictly defined or measured, and internal would be things that cannot.

You can measure the size and weight of a can of soup (Se), you can strictly define the logical relationship of one can to another (1 can + 1 can = 2 cans)(Ti), you can measure how the can of soup physically affects its surroundings over time (Si), and I can't think of a good example for Te.

On the other hand, you can't measure the possibilities of what might be in the soup can (Ne), nor can you strictly measure someone's mood (Fe) or relationships (Fi), and I can't think of an example for Ni, although if there's anything that can't be measured, it's Ni.

(Interesting that I can't seem to think of any examples for my Id functions. Hmm.)

9. Originally Posted by polikujm
Can someone go abouts explaining or showing me a description of the four element types that don't include the field or object part?

Extroverted Ti is really Se, because they are both External Statics. but for every object there is a field, or visa versa, so you should easily be able to describe what an external static is without reference to objects or fields. or describe internal statics, or external dynamics, without reference to objects or fields.

I'm mostly having trouble with what the definition of internal and external are, and in terms of statics and dynamics also.
No

10. Thanks for trying to explain, but it sounds just horrible so far.

Ryu, you have 50 Cents on your avatar. I don't really see any reason to listen to you.

Anyway, thanks.

11. Originally Posted by Krig the Viking
As I understand it, external would be things that can be strictly defined or measured, and internal would be things that cannot.

You can measure the size and weight of a can of soup (Se), you can strictly define the logical relationship of one can to another (1 can + 1 can = 2 cans)(Ti), you can measure how the can of soup physically affects its surroundings over time (Si), and I can't think of a good example for Te.

On the other hand, you can't measure the possibilities of what might be in the soup can (Ne), nor can you strictly measure someone's mood (Fe) or relationships (Fi), and I can't think of an example for Ni, although if there's anything that can't be measured, it's Ni.

(Interesting that I can't seem to think of any examples for my Id functions. Hmm.)
you can see that if you cut open the top of the can, the soup won't fall out all over the place(Te). You can see how the soup can got there (Si)

It isn't clearly defined why the soup can got there?(Ni)

12. .

13. Functions are functions are functions are zombies !!

14. Originally Posted by polikujm
It's basically the internal/external part I don't understand from your explanation. How am I supposed to know if I'm pulling information directly or indirectly and if its hidden or not?
I think the problem is that there's an assumption in Socionics that these things (internal/external, static/dynamic, field/object) actually define the IM elements, in other words that if all we had were these concepts, then we could do away with every other definition, because we could derive the rest of the concepts.

But in reality, the IM elements of course came from Jung, though Augusta added her own twist, and then later she added these other concepts. So, for example, in talking about "external dynamics of fields," you have to somehow understand those three things (external, dynamics, fields) in such a way that you end up with the idea that it's about the senses, etc.

But if you just knew only how Socionists have described what external, dynamics, and fields are, you'd be unlikely to come up with everything Socionists have said about what Si.

Of course, mathematically, one can say that they're "equivalent," which means that there's a one-to-one mapping between these two ways of defining an IM element. If someone says "external dynamics of fields," then there is only one possible IM element that could be, which is Si. Therefore people can say "see, we have defined it." But it leads to a much more abstract and general definition than Socionists mean by Si.

So bottom line is that while Diana's explanation is very good here, and it's correct according to what the theory is, if you're trying to understand Socionics that way, there will always be difficulty, because the answers to your questions (e.g., what is the line between what's "hidden" and what's "measurable") are always that whatever comes out with the result that the IM elements are as described by Socionics is the correct way of understanding it.

15. Originally Posted by Jonathan
But if you just knew only how Socionists have described what external, dynamics, and fields are, you'd be unlikely to come up with everything Socionists have said about what Si.

Of course, mathematically, one can say that they're "equivalent," which means that there's a one-to-one mapping between these two ways of defining an IM element. If someone says "external dynamics of fields," then there is only one possible IM element that could be, which is Si. Therefore people can say "see, we have defined it." But it leads to a much more abstract and general definition than Socionists mean by Si.
.
You found the issue but your solution is wrong.

By understanding the aspects you understand what the elements ACTUALLY are rather than the pop-psyche bullshit attributed to them. That's not to say "aspectonics" comes to totally different conclusions than Jung, though. It clarifies and, yes, abstracts and specifies what the mechanisms behind the perception behind the thought process behind the behaviors are. It also alleviates the enneagram distortions (comfort=9=ISXp, etc) that have perpetrated typings.

16. Originally Posted by ArchonAlarion
You found the issue but your solution is wrong.

By understanding the aspects you understand what the elements ACTUALLY are rather than the pop-psyche bullshit attributed to them. That's not to say "aspectonics" comes to totally different conclusions than Jung, though. It clarifies and, yes, abstracts and specifies what the mechanisms behind the perception behind the thought process behind the behaviors are. It also alleviates the enneagram distortions (comfort=9=ISXp, etc) that have perpetrated typings.
You're implying that basing one's model on the IM elements, as opposed to the internal/external stuff, means that one is automatically using "pop-psyche bull..." That's just the not the case.

All I'm saying is that the internal/external stuff, etc., was added later, after the Jung-based definitions already existed, to make the whole thing seem more scientific.

I'm not denying that thinking about and theorizing with these dichotomies...static vs. dynamic, etc., may be useful. But they're simply not the definitions, and the arbiter of whether one understands them correctly is always whether it comes out lining up with the original definitions.

The "internal/external" thing was actually suggested by someone other than Augusta, as I understand, to be able to have a complete 1-to-1 mapping, as Augusta had already come up with static vs. dynamic and field vs. object.

Of the three, it is the most problemmatic because while it's true that in some sense F may be seen as less measurable or directly understandable as T, and same with N compared with S, still it is hard to make that case that S is to N exactly in the same way as that T is to F.

In my experience, the people who try to base their typings on these things tend to come up with very unique and seemingly bizarre typings. That doesn't mean that they're not any good...maybe it's an improvement. Sometimes I like to listen to people who type me as some type that seems way out of the blue....like LSI for instance. And I think, well, gee, it's an interesting theory and as with any suggestion, I'll think about it for awhile.

The key danger that I've seen though is that people overlook the forest while focusing on the trees, and so a lot of evidence is ignored.

17. I'm going to add one thing to what I just said that may seem a little contractictory. That is that I also think that the "standard" Socionics definitions of the IM elements seem to me to have some problems, and the static/dynamic stuff could be one way of fixing those.

For example, the IM element definitions typically define them in such a way so that Xe and Xi don't seem very related. Whereas other Jung-based typology systems tend to see Te and Ti as different forms of the same thing, Socionics tends to emphasize the differences to such an extent that the model can seem arbitrary.

So I like to picture Te as the dynamic form of logic, whereas Ti is the static form. That provides a different view of what Te is all about, that I think is more congruent with the way people who seem to be, say, LIE, actually behave, since the standard definitions always make Te to seem so trivial.

So breaking things down like this isn't always a bad thing. It's just that we need to understand where this stuff all came from, and that the internal/external stuff, etc., is not a panacea to Socionics' problems with regard to having clear and rigorous definitions.

18. Maybe internal and external is wrong and its abstract-involved? Recently, I've been growing fond on this dichotomy. I think "detached" is a better word than abstract, though:

Se - Involved object statics
Si - Involved field dynamics
Ne - Detached object statics
Ni - Detached field dynamics

Te - Detached object dynamics
Ti - Detached field statics
Fe - Involved object dynamics
Fi - Involved field statics

I haven't thrown away the layer dichotomy (internal-external) yet, but it's usefulness is becoming less and less apparent.

1st tier aspects (Context - identical elements [Ti/Ti]): internal/external, dynamics/static, object/field

2nd tier aspects (Context - identical, complementary, conflicting, and avoiding elements [Ti/Fe-Fi/Te]): involved/detached

3rd tier aspects (Context - All elements): judging/perceiving

So the "judging" nature of Ti only becomes apparent when contrasted to a perceiving element, such as Ne. I need to think of better terms for j/p.

19. Originally Posted by ArchonAlarion
Maybe internal and external is wrong and its abstract-involved?
For the difference between and to be reduced to a tolerable level, they must be differentiated by only one dichotomy - so choose between Static/Dynamic and Objects/Fields. The available replacements are Judging/Perceiving and Abstract/Involved. Internal/External is imo on equal terms with Abstract/Involved, and switching them would change nothing.

I find it easiest to replace Objects/Fields with Judging/Perceiving.

20. I've found objects and fields too valuable in my introspection and observation.

At least their current definitions.

I'm kinda comfortable with Te and Ti being "detached judging" on the higher tiers and "external" on the primary tier. Its not until interaction with other elements that we can really start to see how they both have this "detached judging' quality that separates them.

21. Objects/Fields, Static/Dynamic and Judging/Perceiving seem to be the "core" element features - they're the ones that distinguish between temperaments, so they seem stronger to me. The other four dichotomies are the club and quadra divisions (Alpha/Gamma, Beta/Delta, Socialite/Researcher, Administrator/Humanitarian), and thus are sort of "skewed" between types in the Socion. However, it's unavoidable that we use at least one of these skewed dichotomies. Using both club dichotomies or both quadra dichotomies would remove the sense of unbalance.

22. So what differentiates Ti and Fi (Static Field Judging)?

23. Originally Posted by ArchonAlarion
So what differentiates Ti and Fi (Static Field Judging)?
That's why I called it "unavoidable" that we would use one of the skewed dichotomies... and why I would consider using Internal/External, Involved/Detached and Static/Dynamic as the three base dichotomies.

24. Originally Posted by polikujm
Can someone go abouts explaining or showing me a description of the four element types that don't include the field or object part?

Extroverted Ti is really Se, because they are both External Statics. but for every object there is a field, or visa versa, so you should easily be able to describe what an external static is without reference to objects or fields. or describe internal statics, or external dynamics, without reference to objects or fields.

I'm mostly having trouble with what the definition of internal and external are, and in terms of statics and dynamics also.
External Statics would be that which is relatively stable/consistent AND also well-defined/obvious.

For example,
if I am talking about the color of something, and you don't know what I'm talking about, I can show you the physical color and thus each time I referred to it after that, you would know exactly what I was referring to. One could say that I had defined the color term for you. There's no doubt as to what I am referring to. And no interpretation or approximations are needed. The color isn't likely to change, and if it does, then I would likely be using a different term to refer to the different color.

Another example,
if I said something like "All A are B; All B are C; therefore All A are C" then I am creating an explicit argument showing you how I came to the conclusion that all A are C.
I defined the properties/categories of A, B, and C for you.
By using the terms "all" and "are" these properties/categories are treated as being relatively stable/consistent.
I have also defined my conclusion process for you, so that it is obvious to you how I came to that conclusion.

However,
if u were talking about A, and I treated the conversation as if you were talking about C, then you might be confused (depending on how well defined A and C are).
For example,
if you were talking about barn owls, and I treated it as if you were talking about birds in general, then we would have difficulties in our conversation. If I couldn't tell you how I had made that jump, then obviously the jump wasn't well-defined in my own mind.
If we were talking about something more abstract than owls/birds, such as....socionics elements, which aren't so well-defined, then we'd probably wind up in a number of arguments as to what specifically our terms are referring to, as well as how we came to the conclusions we came to.
If neither of us chose to define our terms, then our arguments would get nowhere as we'd be likely referring to different aspects of each element (even slight differences in interpretations can make a huge difference in discussions).
Compound this with not taking the time to define our premises and conclusions, and we've got the recipe for never ending forum fodder.

Beta STs deal specifically with external statics. That is why they can often seem so demanding and/or stuck to some other types. They refer to things that are relatively stable AND if not now, then can become well-defined or made obvious to someone else, without the need for reinterpretations or approximations. (thankfully, though, there is more to a personality than their ego functions)

I won't go on unless asked to. Except for just enough to say that:
The external/internal and static/dynamic properties refer to the concepts of:
* the levels of definedness/obviousness (or levels of approximation)
* and the levels of stability/consistency (or levels of change/movement)

25. Objects/Fields, Static/Dynamic and Judging/Perceiving seem to be the "core" element features - they're the ones that distinguish between temperaments, so they seem stronger to me. The other four dichotomies are the club and quadra divisions (Alpha/Gamma, Beta/Delta, Socialite/Researcher, Administrator/Humanitarian),
Yes, good job.

The only thing I would add is that Object/Field is the weakest (least influential) of the topmost three. One can understand socionics perfectly fine without it so the option presents itself to just remove it from the "core" entirely.

#### Posting Permissions

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