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)
External Statics w/o field or object
Reply With Quote
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.
