Results 1 to 33 of 33

Thread: Abstract/Involved and External/Internal?

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    2
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Question Abstract/Involved and External/Internal?

    Where can I find info about the Abstract/Involved and External/Internal dichotomies? These are the only dichotomies Wikisocion has no articles on:

    http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p...nt_dichotomies

    (This is not the reason I'm interested in them, by the way.)

    I'm ultimately looking for clear definitions (the fact that I'm probably an MBTI INTP (I'm new to Socionics) may have to do with this).

  2. #2
    Landlord of the Dog and Duck Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    EII-Ne Sp/So
    Posts
    14,935
    Mentioned
    243 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think this page is essentially all that you need...all that you should need. Defragmenting the information elements via a thesaurus is not useful in the grander scheme of things - much better, if you are interested, to see exactly why they are the way they are described via a comparison of the information elements.

    abstract/involved = object/fields

    Socionics :: Information Elements

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Yeah abstract/involved is something the West came up with.

  4. #4
    ._. Aiss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    TIM
    IEI
    Posts
    2,015
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    You won't really find clear definitions, though people try to form them. But there's no real source for it.

    External/internal is mentioned here: http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p...ts#Dichotomies

    Some of my thoughts, neither clear nor qualifying as a definition:

    external/internal - explicit/implicit. External, explicit information implies internal information.

    Si/Ne - explicit context implying content, "what do these words mean in this context"
    Se/Ni - explicit content implying context, "what context do these words create"

    abstract/involved - experiential/conceptual. This is probably the least popular dichotomy, as mostly NT types work with these to begin with, and they don't have involved elements in their egos. Experiences are lived, felt vividly, require here-and-now involvement. Concepts are imagined, thought of, require some degree of detachment.

    Quote Originally Posted by Subterranean View Post
    abstract/involved = object/fields

    Socionics :: Information Elements
    abstract = {Ne, Ni, Te, Ti}, involved = {Se, Si, Fe, Fi}

    internal = {Ne, Ni, Fe, Fi}, external = {Se, Si, Te, Ti}

    object = {Ne, Se, Te, Fe}, field = {Ni, Si, Ti, Fi}

    Quite obviously abstract/involved ≠ object/field.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I thought abstract/involved was a defining line between quadra forms of the elements. (Alpha Ne as distinct from Delta Ne, for example).

  6. #6
    ._. Aiss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    TIM
    IEI
    Posts
    2,015
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg View Post
    I thought abstract/involved was a defining line between quadra forms of the elements. (Alpha Ne as distinct from Delta Ne, for example).
    I thought that was plus/minus (independently of its use in model B)?

    Anyway, abstract/involved is commonly used for NT/SF. I haven't seen it used otherwise so far.

  7. #7
    Landlord of the Dog and Duck Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    EII-Ne Sp/So
    Posts
    14,935
    Mentioned
    243 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    ah. I'm rather distant from all this, but in the understanding I had
    "Objects:
    Things that can be observed, studied, and discussed apart from the subject (observer)"
    = abstract

    "
    Fields:
    Things that are perceived through the subject by means of feelings and cannot be studied apart from the subject"
    = involved

    so do ignore if this intepretation is wrong -
    I find thinking and discussing the theory to this level unenjoyable...stick to the kosher words\interpretations I guess.

    Edit...oh fuck, yes this is bullshit, I understand.

  8. #8
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @ tcaud: those are known as abstract/concrete and are the same thing as -/+ (respective ordering).

  9. #9
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I personally don't think there really is a perfect all-encompassing definition of these terms. They are more like subtle flavors than like actual technical distinctions.

  10. #10
    Creepy-Pied Piper

    Default

    Removed at User Request
    Last edited by Pied Piper; 09-04-2010 at 08:26 AM. Reason: replaced "facts" with "constraints", to not confuse with Extroversion

  11. #11
    Creepy-Pied Piper

    Default

    Removed at User Request

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    object/field is often (incorrectly) divorced from its strictly physical context.

    All of the information elements refer, in some form or another, to concepts in physics. This is made clear by Augusta in her books. (see Rick's notes) She also adds a dab of experiential metaphysics to the mix. Internal dynamics or fields (Ni) means changes within a relative space (a "field"), like for example the inside of a ball. Time is relative, of course (see relativity). However, there may be a hint of alpha NT bias in that definition, because alpha NTs emphasize the relative aspect of time over the shared "absolute" sense of the same.

    Generally a field is a region of space in which objects share a common influence.

  13. #13
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,757
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg View Post
    Generally a field is a region of space in which objects share a common influence.
    ...that common influence being that they influence each other.
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilly View Post
    ...that common influence being that they influence each other.
    Indeed, but only one object's influence may be evaluated at a time.

    Actually this should be explainable in terms of multivariate calculus. Does anyone have diagrams?

  15. #15
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    object/field is often (incorrectly) divorced from its strictly physical context.

    All of the information elements refer, in some form or another, to concepts in physics. This is made clear by Augusta in her books. (see Rick's notes) She also adds a dab of experiential metaphysics to the mix. Internal dynamics or fields (Ni) means changes within a relative space (a "field"), like for example the inside of a ball. Time is relative, of course (see relativity). However, there may be a hint of alpha NT bias in that definition, because alpha NTs emphasize the relative aspect of time over the shared "absolute" sense of the same.

    Generally a field is a region of space in which objects share a common influence.
    I distrust the general assumption that analogies with physics are sensical where socionics is concerned. Explanations in terms of information, computation and ontology seem much more suitable.

  16. #16

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    2
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by Pied Piper View Post
    @Sauwelios: The dichotomy "abstract/involved" is a dichotomy which was invented by some forum user, I think Anndelise (?). It is not Socionics and this dichotomy does have no explanation, it is just a speculative grouping of the functions inspired by the other three which were misunderstood (Objects/Fields, Dynamic/Static, Internal/External).

    The functions themselves emerge out of the partitions of the three dichotomies:
    - the observation that Intuition and Ethics are internal, subjective or indirect, not based on external constraints (like S and T) - eg assumptions or agreements;
    This (the three dichotomies) seems precisely what I've been looking for. However, in what way is Ti, for instance, based on external constraints? I thought that whereas extroverted Thinkers tended to base their judgments or decisions on agreements and the like, introverted ones tended to base them on their own criteria.

  17. #17
    Creepy-Pied Piper

    Default

    Removed at User Request

  18. #18
    Creepy-Pied Piper

    Default

    Removed at User Request

  19. #19
    ._. Aiss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    TIM
    IEI
    Posts
    2,015
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sauwelios View Post
    This (the three dichotomies) seems precisely what I've been looking for. However, in what way is Ti, for instance, based on external constraints? I thought that whereas extroverted Thinkers tended to base their judgments or decisions on agreements and the like, introverted ones tended to base them on their own criteria.
    I know it wasn't addressed to me, but I consider Pinocchio way too biased to leave his opinion on its own. (OK, it's more that the example he gives of unvalued functions are usually patently wrong.) An alternative point of view won't hurt.

    External/Internal doesn't refer to outside or inside the self - that's why the name is misleading. It's about external qualities (directly perceivable) and internal qualities (indirectly perceivable). For example how a person moves is an external observation; what the person feels is an internal one, you're effectively "guessing" at it based on external clues. This is how external, explicit elements imply internal elements. Both external and internal elements can focus outside the self - as in this example - or inside the self. Usually they work in dyads, that is, Si implies Ne, Se implies Ni, Ti implies Fe, Te implies Fi.

    Bodies/Field, on the other hand, focuses on relation to the self. Bodies (object) elements are objective, quantitative - they focus on what is there and use criteria which are based on outside world. Field elements are subjective, qualitative - they perceive through the self, how it all fits together. Of course "objective" perception is still subject to all the biases human beings are susceptible to, it just refers to the criteria. People are more likely to want to agree - achieve a consensus of sorts - on what's related to their extroverted elements. So you'll hear Alphas complaining about Gammas and Gammas complaining about Alphas, each accusing the other of basing its decisions on agreements and the like. In fact, most people do that - in different matters.

    Ti and Te are like proof and evidence. Ti focuses on the whole - things are ultimately correct or incorrect. Te focuses on the pieces - they're true or false. Te valuers are more likely to discuss facts in isolation, to establish their reliability. Ti valuers are more focused on validity of their reasoning, which is usually individual.

    Fi and Fe are like "I don't like it" vs "That sucks". The analogy to Ti and Te is clear. Fe valuers are more likely to discuss likes and dislikes, to establish attitude. That is not to say they focus only on matters of taste, but for example may condemn an imperfect theory because "it sucks" while dismissing evidence. Whereas Te might condemn it if it's based on unreliable evidence or contradicts facts, even if it only requires slight adjustment.

    Both attitudes are strengthened when elements are in ego rather than super-id. And people learn to avoid these mistakes to an extent, unless they choose to remain blind to their own biases.

    What one considers collective, the other sees as individual. But my point is, despite all miscommunication involved, they more often than not yield similar results. What is type dependent is information processing itself, not conclusions reached. And that's why I'm protesting many comparisons which differentiate on this basis, often with sole purpose of making one side seem sensible and the other insensible, regardless of which is which. More often than not smart people end up doing the sensible thing, whatever their sociotype.

  20. #20
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I personally don't think there really is a perfect all-encompassing definition of these terms. They are more like subtle flavors than like actual technical distinctions.
    I should have said this about abstract/involved only.

    External/Internal is actually easy to quantify: the first means an entity (which can be both a Pe object or a Pi perspective*) is refered to of which all properties are defined. This is to say the entity is "well-defined". Internal means a selection of properties is defined only. The entity is "not-well-defined". The first is refered to externally, to the entire set of properties, the object itself. The second is refered to internally, to the selection of properties (or, one property: the property of possessing these properties) that make up a part of the object only.

    * Je and Ji do not refer to object and perspective respectively. This is a misconception in socionics.

  21. #21
    Creepy-Pied Piper

    Default

    Removed at User Request

  22. #22
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aiss
    Fi and Fe are like "I don't like it" vs "That sucks".
    I think what you're describing is more related to Diffuse vs. Focal F functions.

    In any case, when applied to my ESFp brother in law the above does not work.

  23. #23
    ._. Aiss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    TIM
    IEI
    Posts
    2,015
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pied Piper View Post
    You approximatively inverted the properties of the dichotomies. By asserting that, you imply that Ti and Si are subjective and Ne and Fe are objective based on facts - which is obviously wrong. Logic/Thinking and Sensing are factual, they deal with "what is", while Intuition and Ethics/Feeling. Besides the fact that like this you appear like you've forgotten the descriptions of the functions, but just the notions themselves can reveal to you that Thinking can't be inherently "subjective" while Feeling can't be objective.
    I never said half the things you accuse me here of, you know. Reread if you don't realize it yet.

    External (objective, outside of self) criteria != based on fact. Jumping to this conclusion is the first mistake you made.

    External objects (explicit perception by objective criteria) - the closest we get to "what it is" about the object, without considering environments' influence (beyond usual flaws of perception).

    Internal objects (that is, implicit perception by objective criteria) - what its immediate environment implies about the object. "Immediate" is the key word here; it sets criteria outside of self.

    Why are you inverting them and what are you trying to accomplish by this, I don't understand :|. You suggested that I'm "biased", biased towards what, are you misguiding new users just because you have a problem with me? I think all you can win with your political manoeuvres is disrespect. People should learn here not get involved into personal conflicts.
    I consider most if not all examples you give ridiculous. They certainly don't work for your unvalued functions, and sometimes I don't see them working for your valued ones as well. It's indeed a speculation on my part that it's due to bias. It's perfectly possible you do it on purpose, of course.

    Our history pretty much speaks for itself as far as making it personal is concerned, but you're welcome to try to rewrite it.

  24. #24
    Creepy-Pied Piper

    Default

    Removed at User Request

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

    Default

    That's exactly it...

    Objectivity: Te
    (Interest in/focus on the) Object: Se

    They are not the same thing, or even in more than marginal ways related.
    Last edited by krieger; 09-05-2010 at 07:05 PM.

  26. #26
    ._. Aiss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    TIM
    IEI
    Posts
    2,015
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pied Piper View Post
    You confuse objectivity with real objects and theoretic with subjective.
    Ti is objective, although not related to things. The only truly factual information types are Se and Te. But Ti, compared to Te is rather theoretical, as you know, there's where you confuse it with "subjective". Please read the definitions of these 4 terms and you understand without any further effort (if you're really willing to understand).

    This is your main problem, you make too many equivocation fallacies and I told you previously that you'd better use Bodies/Fields for your sake, because the term "object" is too similar to "objectivity" although they have little meaningful connection, especially talking about psychic functions where such mistake make you misunderstand completely the whole picture, the names are just keywords. What's your justification to associate the "Bodies" partition with "objectivity"? Did you read the actual descriptions of these dichotomies, did you read Sedykh's article?? You never explained that, because it's a *fact* that "obj*" = "obj*"?
    Please read what objects mean and note the "news" that humanity has discovered abstract objects a long time ago.

    And read that damn article and descriptions, don't pretend that you miss them and don't reinvent Socionics.
    I've told you too many times already that names have little to do with that. Actually you're the only one who keeps making the connection.

    I use subjective as referring to perception through the subject, individual, qualitative, and objective as mostly subject-independent, collective, quantitative. Clearly, speaking of information elements, subject equals self. Even more obviously, none of our perception is truly objective, yet beyond these imperfections distinction exists in functional attitudes. I'm not sure if there's any point in explaining the obvious subjective-qualitative and objective-quantitative connection, but if you need to hear it explicitly, let me know.

    What you call "objective" sounds more like "explicit" to me - directly perceivable, rather than actually focused outside of self.

    I'd quote Jung's original descriptions, but as you seem to reject these as well, there's little point to it.


    @labcoat: I don't claim they're the same thing, anyway you know I'm using a broader definition of object than you.

  27. #27
    Creepy-Pied Piper

    Default

    Removed at User Request

  28. #28
    escaping anndelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp
    Posts
    6,329
    Mentioned
    208 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pied Piper View Post
    @Sauwelios: The dichotomy "abstract/involved" is a dichotomy which was invented by some forum user, I think Anndelise (?). It is not Socionics and this dichotomy does have no explanation, it is just a speculative grouping of the functions inspired by the other three which were misunderstood (Objects/Fields, Dynamic/Static, Internal/External).
    Sauwelios, Pied Piper is wrong.

    I may have been the first one to mention them to this forum, but I did not create them. Here is the first thread where I brought them up. It has an image from the original site, and an image of translations I was able to get. http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...anslation.html

    The link to the original site is:

    It splits up NS and FT (continuity/integrity vs discretion/divisibility) aka perception vs judgement

    It splits up NF and ST (internal vs external). After going through various russian to english and english to russian translators, as well as putting the terms into various russian dictionaries, such as medical dictionaries, legal dictionaries, and a philosophy one, the english words that consistently brought back the same results were implicit vs explicit.

    It splits up NT and SF (abstractness vs 'the involvement').

    ---

    Many people who want to insert the concept of 'objective' vs 'subjective' quickly dismiss these. I believe that this is due to how easy it is to say either (or both)
    external=objective
    internal=subjective
    abstractness=objective
    'the involvement'=subjective
    object=objective
    field=subjective

    So those who try to insert 'objective vs subjective' as a socionics dichotomy run into constant arguments as to which dichotomy means it, and therefore which ones to ignore.

    I also find it funny when some people try to say things such as
    external (S&T) = abstract (N&T)
    or external (S&T) = objects (Xe: Se, Te, Ne, Fe)

    -----

    Ways that this can be used is when looking at similarities and differences between quadras and clubs...and even types.

    For example:

    NT

    • N & T are both abstract elements. The NT club has both an abstract base element and an abstract creative element...their primary focus is on abstract information.
    • Alpha NT = ego focus on abstract information that remain relatively consistent (eg theoretical structures) aka 'static abstracts'
    • Gamma NT = ego focus on abstract information that change and interact (eg tracking economic factors that are in constant flux while influencing other factors) aka 'dynamic abstracts'

    NF

    • N & F are both internal elements. The NF club has both an implicit base element and an implicit creative element...their primary focus is on implicit information.
    • Delta NF = ego focus on implicit information that remains relatively consistent (aka 'static internals')
    • Beta NF = ego focus on implicit information that is in flux, change, and/or interactions (aka 'dynamic internals')

    But we can go beyond that to also compare types.
    NeTi and NeFi both have Ne base. But their focus differs. NeTi focusing on Ne's abstract information, NeFi focusing on Ne's implicit information. NeTi -> how is this Ne information theoretically structured?
    NeFi -> what does this Ne information mean to those involved...or how might they be affected by it?

    NeTi and NeFi can both look at something (like a theory) and walk away with different conclusions or different ideas from it.
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp

  29. #29
    Creepy-Pied Piper

    Default

    Removed at User Request

  30. #30
    EffyCold The Ineffable's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Wallachia
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    2,195
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    What's the onomatopoeia for that sound when the bolt strikes, "zap"? Then ZAP!
    Quote Originally Posted by Aiss View Post
    I use subjective as referring to perception through the subject, individual, qualitative, and objective as mostly subject-independent, collective, quantitative. Clearly, speaking of information elements, subject equals self. Even more obviously, none of our perception is truly objective, yet beyond these imperfections distinction exists in functional attitudes. I'm not sure if there's any point in explaining the obvious subjective-qualitative and objective-quantitative connection, but if you need to hear it explicitly, let me know.

    What you call "objective" sounds more like "explicit" to me - directly perceivable, rather than actually focused outside of self.

    I'd quote Jung's original descriptions, but as you seem to reject these as well, there's little point to it.
    Please read this page, section "Erroneous hypothesis Young" point 1:
    http://translate.google.com/translat...t.html&prev=_t
    1. Jung did not fully felt and not fully conveyed the difference between ekstravertirovannostyu leading mental mechanism and ekstravertirovannostyu psyche. His first as a matter of transition to the second, and taken together meant the orientation of the object. And the identity of almost merged with external objects, ie objects with orientation.

    The same thing happens with introversion leading mental mechanism and introversion of the psyche. The first goes into the second, a person "takes a" winding down, and hence the direct conclusion that it is, ie, a person - is focused on the subject.

    If in the case ekstratimami, Jung is very close to the truth, except that the entity is also an object and therefore to him in adult life focused not introtim, and the same ekstratim, in the case of introtimami had to introduce a completely new concept - the concept of mezhobektivnyh and intersubjective relations. Which in his adult life and focuses introtim.
    It's overall, IMO, exactly what I said all the time:
    - Jung's Introversion is not the same thing with Socionics Fields; while Extroversion is pretty close to Bodies - it's both about objects - it is not the same thing as well, as long as using Bodies information, the psyche perceives the self as another body, there's no schism between the self and the environment;
    - Jung talks about an Introverted type, while Socionics talks about Fields type of information, which cannot be subjective by itself (in the sense of "me vs the rest", like in Jung).
    Shock intuition, diamond logic.
     

    The16types.info Scientific Model

  31. #31
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post
    @ tcaud: those are known as abstract/concrete and are the same thing as -/+ (respective ordering).
    Can you get me a doc for that?

  32. #32
    Samuel the Gabriel H. MisterNi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles, California, USA.
    TIM
    C-IEE Ne (862)
    Posts
    1,131
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labocat View Post
    I personally don't think there really is a perfect all-encompassing definition of these terms. They are more like subtle flavors than like actual technical distinctions.
    You could say that about any field of study that requires defining though and there are always going to be disagreements on precise meaning.

    IEE Ne Creative Type

    Some and role lovin too. () I too...
    !!!!!!

  33. #33
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    no. i think J/P and static/dynamic are definitive technical qualifiers. abstract/involved and object/field are different.

Posting Permissions

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