# Thread: My beef with the function definitions (field, external, etc)

1. ## My beef with the function definitions (field, external, etc)

My problem is that there is no ontological difference between statics and dynamics. The assumption that there is such a difference yields problems in physics (Einsteinian relativity).

Time is simply a dimension of spatial reality along which a subjective observer moves.

Time is inherently linked to subjectivity this way. It is an illusion given rise to by one's subjective movement through space. The fact that we travel along the dimension of time makes it seem special to us. In reality, it is a spatial dimension like any other.

Oh, right. The fact we call it a dimension also emerges from subjectivity. It is established as a dimension so one has a reference point. Other spatial dimensions are then established in relation to this temporal dimension and aren't exempt from scrutiny either, but to consider them at least a part of the world we represents doesn't yield nearly as many problems.

Having established what time really is: the succession of states of one's subjectivity, I have solved the problem (old news, I have been using these definitions for years) of what the Dynamic functions should really be called: phenomenological. They concern the study of appearances and impressions. They are the subjective material from which our representations of the world are built up. This conclusion is also supported by the easy at which they can be used to create an interpretation of Accepting/Creating and Limiting/Empowering with.

2. Let me try to argue the point another way.

Suppose you have two representations of an object:
1. a sequential representation of a line that grows at a constant rate and then shrinks at the same rate for the same time as it grew.
2. a static, 2 dimensional image of a mathematical diamond

Now display the sequential representation by outputting the sequence of lines from left to right on paper.

The result is representation 2.

The information contained in the two is identical. Only the trivial detail of how the two are displayed differs. Is the difference between socionical functions really dependent on such a triviality?

3. How can you be sure that time exists in states nonetheless? Isn't it equally as possible that we are limited in intelligence to perceive states from something that is more inherently stateless, or rather simply relative as Einstein might put it?

I'm just asking because the concept of time always seemed frightening to me since there is a possibility that it does not exist in states like a video game or movie might with a frame rate, but as something separate and incomprehensible to me.

Let me try to argue the point another way.

Suppose you have two representations of an object:
1. a sequential representation of a line that grows at a constant rate and then shrinks at the same rate for the same time as it grew.
2. a static, 2 dimensional image of a mathematical diamond

Now display the sequential representation by outputting the sequence of lines from left to right on paper.

The result is representation 2.

The information contained in the two is identical. Only the trivial detail of how the two are displayed differs. Is the difference between socionical functions really dependent on such a triviality?
I'm not following this, sorry. Care to explain it with more detail?

4. How can you be sure that time exists in states nonetheless?
I think it is quite a tenable position that the "states" are also generated by subjectivity, in other words, made just because they are useful to us. Despite this, though, these separations that create states are the only thing through which we are able to know the world. Immanuel Kant believed there is something about subjectivity that is rational in a "trancendent" way, so despite that these separations are subject-relative, they need not necessarily be arbitrary.

Isn't it equally as possible that we are limited in intelligence to perceive states from something that is more inherently stateless, or rather simply relative as Einstein might put it?
We seem to be able to understand infinitely dense graduations of change by observing them at iterative depth. I think in as far as we are not able to register a change in our experiences as a distinct states, this is due to our failing to notice them. As soon as there is a basis for the perception of a difference there is a basis for a separation between two states.

I'm not following this, sorry. Care to explain it with more detail?
I'm basically saying that a movie that is displayed on a TV screen and the tape on which the movie is recorded contain the same information. The fact that in one (TV) the images are displaced in time and in the other (tape) the images are displaced in space (from left to right on the tape) is rather trivial.

5. edit:

Originally Posted by labcoat
We seem to be able to understand infinitely dense graduations of change by observing them at iterative depth.
Problem with this is that we can not do this with our experiences, only with sequences in spatial reality. We can revisit the latter, but not the former. Hence why I adress gradual experience in the next sentence.

6. Originally Posted by labcoat
Only the trivial detail of how the two are displayed differs.
Doesn't this mean that, even if the information is the same, the way of receiving/understanding/processing it is different?

You're also saying "Well, I can present Dynamic information in a static form!" because the two are very readily translated (time flows, or alternatively it's a sequence of infinitely narrow states). I can just as easily say that your static image of a diamond has been filled up or coloured in or whatever.

Well, almost, because a static diamond is sort of ambiguous in Dynamic terms, as there's a variety of ways you could get to that diamond (it could've grown, you could've coloured it in from right to left, or top to bottom; or the opposite of any of these), and a variety of ways in which that process could continue.

So, actually, the information isn't the same, not exactly. I think. I might've misunderstood something in your first post though.

EDIT

And also, you keep going on about subjectivity like it's contaminating socionics, but socionics is about how we perceive reality, so it's sort of vital to consider, isn't it?

7. edit:

Originally Posted by labcoat
We seem to be able to understand infinitely dense graduations of change by observing them at iterative depth.
Another important thing: we keep deepening our perception of the graduation and then have to make an induction along the lines of "I could go on like this forever" for us to understand the nature of infinitely dense gradual change. But again, we can only do this to a change along a spatial dimension that we can re-visit and control our movement around.

8. My beef with your beef, is that, while the mechanisms of human perception are subject to the laws of physics, their subjective methods of apprehending and incorporating information are not. Pretty simple.

9. Doesn't this mean that, even if the information is the same, the way of receiving/understanding/processing it is different?
Yes, but it seems to me to be unsatisfying that the difference in processing is based on something that is ontologically so trivial, unless the focus on time simply means a focus on the progression of states in ones subjectivity.

You're also saying "Well, I can present Dynamic information in a static form!" because the two are very readily translated (time flows, or alternatively it's a sequence of infinitely narrow states). I can just as easily say that your static image of a diamond has been filled up or coloured in or whatever.
I think its trivial which of the two is more real or which is "fundamental". The two are so easily translated that you have to wonder whether they should be named separately at all.

Well, almost, because a static diamond is sort of ambiguous in Dynamic terms, as there's a variety of ways you could get to that diamond (it could've grown, you could've coloured it in from right to left, or top to bottom; or the opposite of any of these), and a variety of ways in which that process could continue.

So, actually, the information isn't the same, not exactly. I think. I might've misunderstood something in your first post though.
But each of these methods of arriving at the diamond has its own greater static representation of which the diamond in the final state is only a minor part.

And also, you keep going on about subjectivity like it's contaminating socionics, but socionics is about how we perceive reality, so it's sort of vital to consider, isn't it?
I don't think its contaminating socionics and I agree that it is vital to consider it.

10. [quote=labcoat;654612]I think its trivial which of the two is more real or which is "fundamental". The two are so easily translated that you have to wonder whether they should be named separately at all.[/quotes]

This is my point. They're two ways, equally valid, of looking at the same thing. You've just put the diamond in static terms, and then said that it's a summary of a dynamic process.

Equally, from a dynamic point of view, the static way of looking at it is capturing a moment within a flow of something.

The thing we're studying is an item of external reality. The dynamics will capture the process, the statics will capture a manifestation, something that precipitates from the process.

That said, I'm not sure how to unmix introversion and extraversion from this.

Originally Posted by labcoat
But each of these methods of arriving at the diamond has its own greater static representation of which the diamond in the final state is only a minor part.
Ok, that solves the problem of not isolating I/E

Aside from that, this is just another instance of the "two ways of saying the same thing". A progression of infinitely narrow spans of time (an instant or a moment) is the same as a general "flow" of time; one is just a static saying that there's snapshot-to-snapshot motion, the other is a dynamic saying that there's a flow.

11. My beef with your beef, is that, while the mechanisms of human perception are subject to the laws of physics, their subjective methods of apprehending and incorporating information are not. Pretty simple.
Yeah. Exactly.

Your post was interesting though in that it was definitely how a Ti-ego INTj would see the functions. But I mean that's still not the objectively best way to describe them as. Maybe the function definitions aren't perfect, but they are as scientifically perfect as we can get IMO.

I think a lot of people undervalue the work that the original creators put into this theory. Things like 'External dynamics of fields' to describe functions is like still the most accurate, don't see how you could make them better than that.

12. That said, I'm not sure how to unmix introversion and extraversion from this.
My point is that introversion and extraversion are impossible to disconnect from the issue.

The only way to distinguish two subjective states is to mention their displacement in time.

Of objective states in reality, we commonly assume we can distinguish them by either mentioning a displacement in space or in time, but this is both problematic (Einstein) and redundant (previously mentioned examples). Calling all distinctions in reality spatial solves the problems.

Aside from that, this is just another instance of the "two ways of saying the same thing". A progression of infinitely narrow spans of time (an instant or a moment) is the same as a general "flow" of time; one is just a static saying that there's snapshot-to-snapshot motion, the other is a dynamic saying that there's a flow.
I'm sceptical of idea of continuous processing. It doesn't match any kind of computational process we are familiar with today. I think its more tenable that all types have to make separations before they can represent anything or so much as think any thought.

13. Originally Posted by labcoat
My problem is that there is no ontological difference between statics and dynamics. The assumption that there is such a difference yields problems in physics (Einsteinian relativity).

Time is simply a dimension of spatial reality along which a subjective observer moves.

Time is inherently linked to subjectivity this way. It is an illusion given rise to by one's subjective movement through space. The fact that we travel along the dimension of time makes it seem special to us. In reality, it is a spatial dimension like any other.

Oh, right. The fact we call it a dimension also emerges from subjectivity. It is established as a dimension so one has a reference point. Other spatial dimensions are then established in relation to this temporal dimension and aren't exempt from scrutiny either, but to consider them at least a part of the world we represents doesn't yield nearly as many problems.

Having established what time really is: the succession of states of one's subjectivity, I have solved the problem (old news, I have been using these definitions for years) of what the Dynamic functions should really be called: phenomenological. They concern the study of appearances and impressions. They are the subjective material from which our representations of the world are built up. This conclusion is also supported by the easy at which they can be used to create an interpretation of Accepting/Creating and Limiting/Empowering with.
(:

14. Originally Posted by BulletsAndDoves
Your post was interesting though in that it was definitely how a Ti-ego INTj would see the functions.
Exactly, lol. It sounded very static.

The thing about static vs. dynamic is that everyone's conscious functions are either all static or all dynamic (as opposed to external vs. internal and objects vs. fields), so theoretically it wouldn't really be possible to consciously comprehend a static perspective if you're dynamic or a dynamic perspective if you're static.

None of this actually matters anyways though, lol.

15. Originally Posted by labcoat
Time is simply a dimension of spatial reality along which a subjective observer moves.
*sigh*. Time isn't simply anything.

Originally Posted by labcoat
Only the trivial detail of how the two are displayed differs. Is the difference between socionical functions really dependent on such a triviality?
Yes. That is, like, the whole point. Especially introverted and extroverted versions of the same function, the difference is primarily one of emphasis, and ditto with Fi&Ni, Si&Ti, Se&Te, Ne&Fe. The functions that are the most different (in aspectonics and, I think, in the theory as a whole) are the complementary pairs. Although I didn't understand how 1 ended up being 2. It kind of gave me a headache thinking about it, so I didn't try.

Originally Posted by Gilly
My beef with your beef, is that, while the mechanisms of human perception are subject to the laws of physics, their subjective methods of apprehending and incorporating information are not. Pretty simple.
lol. Solved.

16. I'm not suggesting this is all a matter of perspective, though. The position that reality is primarily temporal is just untenable. To focus on dynamic functions is to focus on something other than the stable, outer reality. It is to focus on private experience instead.

You'll notice that the description of Static/Dynamic in the Reinin descriptions emphasizes subjective experience in the description of Dynamic.

17. Let's talk about something else. Objectivity and subjectivity.

I've done enough research on these terms to know and be able to demonstrate that these are ambiguous terms in both colloquial speech and professional usage.

In some contexts it means something along the lines of the study of appearances vs. the study of outer reality.

In some other contexts, it means something more along the lines of empirically justified vs. based on ideosyncratic, unjustified judgment.

Now, much what we understand about introversion vs. extroversion is based on these notions of subjectivity and objectivity.

And it so happens that we find this ambiguity in our socionics definitions too.

Te is objective because it is empirically justified.
Se, on the other hand, is objective because it involves the study of outer reality.
Ti is subjective because it is ideosyncratic and unjustified.
Si is subjective because it involves the study of appearances.

So, the introvert/extrovert property refers to something very flimsy and inconstant.

18. Next, zoom in on Te. I link this to empiricism. What does this mean?

It means that all judgments are reduced to practical measurements.

A measurement is something made from a subjective position. It is subjectively best understood as a clear distinction between two phenomenal states. "I see the difference between these two; I measure a difference".

This is how Te is a function closely related to phenomenology (the study of appearances).

19. Originally Posted by labcoat
Next, zoom in on Te. I link this to empiricism. What does this mean?

It means that all judgments are reduced to practical measurements.

A measurement is something made from a subjective position. It is subjectively best understood as a clear distinction between two phenomenal states. "I see the difference between these two; I measure a difference".

This is how Te is a function closely related to phenomenology (the study of appearances).
That's definitely Ti.

20. If I had to briefly and casually describe Te I'd say it's about what's going on from a very literal and practical standpoint. It's related to events and actions.

21. Well, labcoat is obviously right. As usual.

It's related to events and actions.
Events and actions only exist along the time-dimension axis.

22. Okay, but that's one perspective. An intellectual perspective. Examples of functions and information elements are much simpler in day to day life though.

Step away from the keyboard!

23. (and this is still Ti)

24. Originally Posted by Joy
Okay, but that's one perspective. An intellectual perspective. Examples of functions and information elements are much simpler in day to day life though.

Step away from the keyboard!
Of course it's an intellectual perspective, that's implicit in the structure of the OP. Why do you want to "play the sensor" is beyond me.

25. It's not a matter of "playing the sensor". It's a matter of living life. And not over-analyzing, missing the forest for the trees.

26. I agree with others, this sounds totally static and missing the point of dynamics. Personally, I find "focus on constant aspects of reality" and "focus on changeable aspects of reality" infinitely more useful than usual image vs movie analogy. Or otherwise, I could describe statics as "objects' qualities and how they relate to each other", and dynamics as "objects' actions and interactions". I stand by subjectivity/objectivity - described as individual viewpoint vs unifying viewpoints to create a viewpoint-independent image - going with introversion/extraversion (field/object), and also qualitative/quantitative.

I disagree with example of "Te", by the way. Te isn't classification of objects. Te is explicit actions of objects, which usually relates to how useful something is (for a given purpose).

27. Removed at User Request

28. Joy, shut the fuck up.

29. You have to be a complete moron not to see that Te is the most empiricist function.

Originally Posted by Joy
If I had to briefly and casually describe Te I'd say it's about what's going on from a very literal and practical standpoint. It's related to events and actions.
Practical means you can work with it. Emphasis on you. Practicality means not giving a damn about the value of an idea apart from how it gets you ahead. Its a very subject-relative notion.

Originally Posted by Aiss
I disagree with example of "Te", by the way. Te isn't classification of objects. Te is explicit actions of objects, which usually relates to how useful something is (for a given purpose).
Originally Posted by Pinocchio
Exactly. Ti is the classification of objects. Classifications themselves are field information, adding "objects" doesn't change anything.
Guess what, I never said anything about classification of objects. You are both fighting a strawman.

30. Originally Posted by Aiss
Personally, I find "focus on constant aspects of reality" and "focus on changeable aspects of reality" infinitely more useful than usual image vs movie analogy.
Everything is technically changable. The only thing that matter is how much effort it takes to change things. You're basing your entire model on a very flimsy constraint.

Originally Posted by Aiss
I could describe statics as "objects' qualities and how they relate to each other", and dynamics as "objects' actions and interactions".
Only agents (actors) have actions and interactions, so you are already treating the object as something with subjectivity. This is exactly what I say is implied by the use of dynamicism in an ontological model.

31. Notice that Brian also spontaneously involves a subjective agent in his description when he tries to give the Dynamic account of things:

Originally Posted by Brian
You're also saying "Well, I can present Dynamic information in a static form!" because the two are very readily translated (time flows, or alternatively it's a sequence of infinitely narrow states). I can just as easily say that your static image of a diamond has been filled up or coloured in (by someone?) or whatever.

Well, almost, because a static diamond is sort of ambiguous in Dynamic terms, as there's a variety of ways you could get to that diamond (it could've grown, you could've coloured it in from right to left, or top to bottom; or the opposite of any of these), and a variety of ways in which that process could continue.

32. Originally Posted by labcoat
Everything is technically changable. The only thing that matter is how much effort it takes to change things. You're basing your entire model on a very flimsy constraint.
That's exactly the point you're missing. No one says static qualities cannot be changed, but that changeability isn't part of their nature. If something isn't going to change unless an effort is put to change it, it's probably a static property.

Only agents (actors) have actions and interactions, so you are already treating the object as something with subjectivity. This is exactly what I say is implied by the use of dynamicism in an ontological model.
"Action" of dynamic objects is their function.

Originally Posted by labcoat
Notice that Brian also spontaneously involves a subjective agent in his description when he tries to give the Dynamic account of things:
The way you use the word subject here, I can see your point - dynamics require there to be a subject, in a way; there must be something active, else all change ceases. It's not subjective/objective in the meaning used in almost any other context, and there's hardly a worse term for what you're trying to convey here. Subjective (phenomenal) means tied to subject's point of view, not viewing something else as a subject:

subjective
(...)
3 a : characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind : phenomenal — compare objective 1b

... and that's pretty much introverted (fields) functions.

33. Removed at User Request

34. The way you use the word subject here, I can see your point - dynamics require there to be a subject, in a way; there must be something active, else all change ceases. It's not subjective/objective in the meaning used in almost any other context, and there's hardly a worse term for what you're trying to convey here. Subjective (phenomenal) means tied to subject's point of view, not viewing something else as a subject:

subjective
(...)
3 a : characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind : phenomenal — compare objective 1b

... and that's pretty much introverted (fields) functions.
Its Si and Ni, not Ti and Fi. Ti and Fi are called subjective because they are difficult to justify. They are subjective exactly because their relation to registered data (~ sense experience, phenomena) is roundabout and distant.

That's exactly the point you're missing. No one says static qualities cannot be changed, but that changeability isn't part of their nature. If something isn't going to change unless an effort is put to change it, it's probably a static property.
How does the mind determine whether something has a nature of being changeable or not before trying to change the thing? Does it "just know"? Your view of things just suffers from too many problems.

35. If I had to briefly and casually describe Te I'd say it's about what's going on from a very literal and practical standpoint. It's related to events and actions.
Not sure if I agree with that Joy, I think you could say the same thing about all external, non-field functions. (Hell even some of the non-external ones)

Besides, the way society is constructed it still isn't very 'real' at least not in a way that biology or mother nature would agree with. It's just a human idea. I think socionics is based on that, on society, on how humans think the world should be ran, which of course is very strong and subjective.

But maybe that's it. Beta functions are 'Real/Ideal' and Delta functions are 'Practical/Religious.'

36. Its Si and Ni, not Ti and Fi. Ti and Fi are called subjective because they are difficult to justify. They are subjective exactly because their relation to registered data (~ sense experience, phenomena) is roundabout and distant.
Yeah! Thanks for clearing this up. It's pretty simple to me and others overcomplicate this issue but it's basically like:

You get an orange bright basketball. And 1,500 people. And each of those 1,500 people can all have different subjective emotional impressions to the basketball. Some can hate it, some can love it, some can hold it up as the best object in the world, because it was their older brother's ball, and he was a professional athlete. Some can be colorblind and think the orange ball is really a blue ball. Some can feel indifferent toward the object.... but the raw object is still just the same.

There's no proving a subjective thing is right or wrong because it's based on a relationship not an *object*ive fact. That's what is so interesting about art and subjectivity and emotions and fag feelings and everything internal. And society is constructed based primarily on internal subjective *feelings*, ie that basketball was created by man as a subjective idea, turned objective. And that is the link. As far as humans are concerned, it goes hand in hand. Our subjective power is so great we get to choose our own reality to a very high degree, unlike other lifeforms who are just a constant victim to their objective environment.

37. I'm going to frame my point in a slightly different way.

Even if its not necessary to equate temporal and spatial distinction to eachother in regard to the outer reality, it is possible and convenient. A mental system that tries to model its world would be less complex and thus more efficient when it would make this simplification.

The only area where time can not be equated to space is in the realm of subjectivity, because the notion of one experience manifesting before the other is too integral to subjectivity to be "thought away".

38. Since this thread seems to have derailed towards static/dynamic discussion anyway...

From wikisocion:
* Static IM types contain static IM elements in their mental ring (functions 1 through 4), and dynamic elements in the vital ring (5 through 8). This means that they tend to verbalize things from a static standpoint, while their behavior is more influenced by dynamic aspects.
* Dynamic IM types contain dynamic IM elements in their mental ring, and static element in the vital ring. They tend to verbalize things from a dynamic standpoint, while their behavior is more influenced by static aspects.
This could be imagined as - only in context of perceiving time - static types using inertial reference frame (they're moving through time), and dynamic types using non-inertial reference frame (they're observing time flow). That's not to say one type acts more or less dynamically in a conventional meaning, but the perception of the world as dynamic requires perception of self being static, and the reverse for static types.

Since duals are on different sides of this dichotomy, I'd expect they complete each other in this way - one being better suited to observe (extract?) variables and the other processes. That nothing is completely unchangeable doesn't make it any less a static property (variable - "constant" is more intuitive, but I suppose some would find it objectionable).

I can see some potential in extrapolating perception of time on perception of space - although in this case most people seem to be more or less similar - but not in a more general sense labcoat attempts, as other IEs properties play a part.

39. Slight update of my views on this topic:

When we start representing something, anything, the resulting representation is Static.

To represent something Dynamically, is to represent it as some kind of film or slideshow in motion. But such representations are always about you observing something. This is how Dynamic representations are equivalent to phenomenological ones.

40. So, why wouldn't we also observe the static representations?

Page 1 of 2 12 Last

#### Posting Permissions

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