Abstract/Involved and External/Internal?

[Sauwelios]

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).

[Not A Communist Shill]

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

[tcaudilllg]

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

[Aiss]

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.

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.

[tcaudilllg]

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

[Aiss]

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.

[krieger]

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

[krieger]

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.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Not A Communist Shill]

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.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Sauwelios]

@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.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[anndelise]

@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: Èíôîðìàöèîíèêà

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.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request