Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: External Statics w/o field or object

  1. #1
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    8,337
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default 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. #2
    crazedrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    moon
    Posts
    4,885
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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.
    Last edited by crazedrat; 10-04-2009 at 05:30 AM.
    INTp

  3. #3
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    8,337
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I am so horny for less of this.

  4. #4
    ***el X Mercenary Nebuchadnezzar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Socionix sleeper cell
    TIM
    Te-ISTp
    Posts
    1,413
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    lol

    "His feeling that this world is not his Fatherland, and that it does not represent his proper condition, so to speak—his feeling that, basically, he 'comes from afar'—will remain a fundamental element which will not give rise to mystical escapism and spiritual weakness, but rather will enable him to minimise, to relativise, to refer to higher concepts of measure and limit, all that can seem important and definitive to others, starting with death itself, and will confer on him calm force and breadth of vision." — Julius Evola

    SLI-Te | 5w6 sp/so
    Oldham Solitary

    Johari
    Nohari

  5. #5
    Creepy-Diana

    Default

    .

  6. #6
    Sauron, The Great Enemy ArchonAlarion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    POOPLAIR
    TIM
    Alpha NT 5w4 so/sx
    Posts
    4,399
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    That's pretty good Diana.
    OPERATION POOPLAIR

    Now conscripting, for more information come here: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...48#post1003048

  7. #7
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    8,337
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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. #8
    Contrarian Traditionalist Krig the Viking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Canada's Prairie Farmland
    TIM
    C-LII
    Posts
    2,647
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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.)
    Quaero Veritas.

  9. #9
    UDP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East Coast West Coast Dirty South
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    14,827
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by polikujm View Post
    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. #10
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    8,337
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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. #11
    Azeroffs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    California
    TIM
    ENTj 3w4 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,216
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Krig the Viking View Post
    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)
    3w4-5w6-9w8

  12. #12
    Creepy-Diana

    Default

    .

  13. #13
    Haikus
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    MI
    TIM
    IEI-Ni
    Posts
    10,060
    Mentioned
    223 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Functions are functions are functions are zombies !!

  14. #14

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,969
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by polikujm View Post
    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. #15
    Sauron, The Great Enemy ArchonAlarion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    POOPLAIR
    TIM
    Alpha NT 5w4 so/sx
    Posts
    4,399
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan View Post
    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.
    OPERATION POOPLAIR

    Now conscripting, for more information come here: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...48#post1003048

  16. #16

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,969
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ArchonAlarion View Post
    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. #17

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,969
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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. #18
    Sauron, The Great Enemy ArchonAlarion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    POOPLAIR
    TIM
    Alpha NT 5w4 so/sx
    Posts
    4,399
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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.
    OPERATION POOPLAIR

    Now conscripting, for more information come here: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...48#post1003048

  19. #19
    Currently God Brilliand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Nevada
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    4,246
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ArchonAlarion View Post
    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.



    LII-Ne

    "Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
    - Blair Houghton

    Johari

  20. #20
    Sauron, The Great Enemy ArchonAlarion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    POOPLAIR
    TIM
    Alpha NT 5w4 so/sx
    Posts
    4,399
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

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

    I have not found judging and perceiving as much.

    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.
    OPERATION POOPLAIR

    Now conscripting, for more information come here: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...48#post1003048

  21. #21
    Currently God Brilliand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Nevada
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    4,246
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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.



    LII-Ne

    "Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
    - Blair Houghton

    Johari

  22. #22
    Sauron, The Great Enemy ArchonAlarion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    POOPLAIR
    TIM
    Alpha NT 5w4 so/sx
    Posts
    4,399
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    So what differentiates Ti and Fi (Static Field Judging)?
    OPERATION POOPLAIR

    Now conscripting, for more information come here: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...48#post1003048

  23. #23
    Currently God Brilliand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Nevada
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    4,246
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ArchonAlarion View Post
    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.



    LII-Ne

    "Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
    - Blair Houghton

    Johari

  24. #24
    escaping anndelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp
    Posts
    6,338
    Mentioned
    210 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by polikujm View Post
    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)
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp

  25. #25
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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
  •