# Thread: Explain the internal/external dichotomy

1. ## Explain the internal/external dichotomy

What the thread title says. I cannot find any good information on the internal/external dichotomy on google. I want to understand this dichotomy in a qualitative way... If someone understands please explain.

2. external = what it is
internal = what it could be

3. I didn't know there was an external/internal dichotomy.

I immediately thought of external vs internal locus of control..which probably isn't what you are asking.

4. I haven't found this dichotomy to be of particular use, and even misleading to an extent. For example, Ti is considered to be an "explicit/external" element which makes it liable to be mistaken for anything ranging from being able to come up with coherent arguments and intelligible interpretations to writing out math formulas across a chalkboard (as an 'explicit' demonstration of one's astonishing mastery of Ti).

For what it's worth here's a repost from Prokofieva's article: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ics-Prokofieva

The third division: evident (explicit) - implicit

Explicit/Evident:
Implicit (hidden):

Information of each of discussed four aspects can manifest itself in two ways:

- as visible to the “naked eye”, evident, seen, apparent;

- as till proper time invisible, unapparent though existing objectively.

That is, the first group includes the information about evident things, it is notable, perceptible. And the information on the second group is easier to hide, it can be guessed about by indirect signs. Let’s call these groups of information signals evident and implicit accordingly.

Why should we introduce a new term?

A. Augustinavichuite divided the information about objects into inner and outer ones. To divide the information about relationships no such common principle was suggested. A. Augustinavichuite divided relationships in statics into subjective and objective ones. There was no term for the relationships in dynamics. Nevertheless the uniting term for the third information division into aspects is necessary for the clear-eyed understanding of the world and psyche information structure.

First, I also wanted to call information aspects about relationships inner and outer ones for the terminology unification, like R.K. Sedykh had done. But it does not work. The simple question: is a sensation an outer thing? And feeling? – causes bewilderment. This way can bring to great confusion.

It took a long time to choose such common term.

Concrete – abstract?

Factual – supposed?

Subjective – objective?

Sensed – ephemeral?

Evident – incredible?

As a result of a lengthy search we settled on the terms “evident – implicit (hidden)”.

The terms “evident – implicit” are introduced as run-time names. Possibly, in future somebody will offer better ones. The matter of term choice is complicated not only for us at present. Jung spoke about the fact that the terms do not fully reflect the essence of a phenomenon: “In reality we should know what names we give to what things. Psychology is a virgin land where a language has to consolidate its grip” [3].

Is it worth at all introducing the whole unified division here? First, I had an opinion that there is separate division in every of the previously described groups and they are not interconnected. But observations and logical reasoning suggest such division being clearly indicated. It is not for nothing that intuition, and not feeling, is sometimes compared to logical thinking. It is not for nothing, that a doctor takes into consideration his patient’s sensations separating them from emotions.

Those life spheres where logics and sensorics prevail, we take as sound, solid, ponderable and exact. And the conclusions based on the feelings and intuition are often taken as subjective. Feelings and intuition are said to be ephemeral.

Information about evident, noticeable outwardly is referred to the visible aspects.
To the implicit aspects – the information about the things which can be unnoticeable for a long time, the things about which one can guess by indirect signs, which can be concealed easier.

For example, an action and a feeling. The action is evident, noticeable. If the actions has been done, it is obvious for the people who have witnessed it that it has occurred and they can confirm that. The feeling appears in a person’s soul. He can manifest it with words, gestures, actions and he can choose not to manifest it. But observers can not assert that they know what a person really felt, they can only guess about that.

5. Yes, the 3rd level divisional exponent has to consist of 2 overarching divisions or 4 smaller divisions. If it's a single dichotomy, like internal/external, then it will need to be applied 4 times separately to each quadrant in the 2nd level structure. If it's made up of 2 overarching divisions then it must consist of 2 dichotomies, together splitting the quadrants.
External/internal, being a single dichotomy, attempts to separate each quadrant individually, but like you say there is no apparent consistency in its application.
That pretty much sums it up.

I can think of a couple better names... a change to the dichotomy will scramble how the functions are relatively organized. Only an ideal information cycle; linear metabolic consistency across all types, can provide a standard by which the functions may be 'correctly' coordinated and this issue resolved. But, as it is; and because of the problems in this dichotomy, there is no linear metabolic consistency in information cycles between types in model A, and somehow 8 functions are able to produce 16 types through scrambling the cycles erroneously.

Model B resolves the problem. This dichotomy is just flawed though.

With an ideal information metabolism the linear metabolic distinguishment is something ambiguous like preceding vs. succeeding.

Using 2 overarching divisions for the 3rd level dichotomies the P and J functions are distinguished... The P dichotomy groups Ni/Se and Si/Ne together.. it is potential (Ni/Se) vs. realizing (Ne/Si). The J dichotomy groups Fi/Te and Fe/Ti together and is called implicated (Fe/Ti) vs. determined (Fi/Te).

6. Originally Posted by xerx
external = what it is
internal = what it could be
Right. Just I would appen "the case" to each definition, for a more precise sense: "what is the case" and "what could be the case" (regardless of the value of truth of a statement, or something).

7. I don't say it's perfect but I do think the division ST/NF is meaningful, and I'd not somehow totally throw out explicit/implicit.

If one looks at thinking~explicit, what's going on is to me clarified to an extent - part of thinking is that the same intuition can be found in many contexts, so looking at those contexts from the standpoint of the intuition itself, one simply gets a glimpse of them as various possibilities. Whereas logic is what establishes direct comparisons/contrasts between concepts, and makes these intuitively known contexts "explicit" in a sense (note that of course this is valid to an intuition plus logic combination only, but I'm just illustrating).

What is going on here is that there's often a certain background and a certain substance of pursuit, and the background is approached a certain way, the substance a certain way, yet the substance is somehow what we directly see and describe. At the last resort, the pursuit of feeling goes to the depths of experiencing disharmony between clusters of tones, and becomes entirely substanceless, with only attractions and repulsions..once the attractions/repulsions lead certain substances to come together (collecting around an idea) we can aim to make explicit the links which are established, thus delineating the idea. And intuition becomes potentials with little tangible manifestation of that potential in action.
There is a sense we can only infer a potential existed once a disturbance alerts us that it was there in the background. Some of this is getting at Ti/Fi and Ne/Se.

This whole internal dynamics of fields, etc, is perhaps more useful as a theoretical delineation than literally, since it's for sure true that lots of senses of the word "explicit" exist which point to something other than S or T....in other words, words have meaning outside of their use in defining personality typology terms

#### Posting Permissions

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