Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Please Help Clarify a short Babel'd Rus to Eng Translation

  1. #1
    escaping anndelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp
    Posts
    6,338
    Mentioned
    210 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Please Help Clarify a short Babel'd Rus. to Eng. Translation

    (I am providing the babel'd translation first, followed by the original.)

    Would anyone care to discuss?

    babel'd translation:


    Russian original:
    Last edited by anndelise; 04-21-2009 at 05:56 PM. Reason: updated image links as referenced
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    6,074
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Ann, I agree with your point that both Intuition and Thinking are abstract functions, and Sensation and Feeling are experiental functions.

    (but I don't agree that S & T are "superfical" morons.)


    But... to everyone else, Ann and I were thinking that basically, NTs deal with reality from an abstract angle, SFs are experiential, but STs and NFs fight between the two (this is why I was surprised Pedro thought Expat was ESTJ btw). Both of us describe our thought-processes as sort of our brains being at "war" with themselves.
    MAYBE I'LL BREAK DOWN!!!


    Quote Originally Posted by vague
    Rocky's posts are as enjoyable as having wisdom teeth removed.

  3. #3
    escaping anndelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp
    Posts
    6,338
    Mentioned
    210 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky
    Ann, I agree with your point that both Intuition and Thinking are abstract functions, and Sensation and Feeling are experiental functions.

    (but I don't agree that S & T are "superfical" morons.)


    But... to everyone else, Ann and I were thinking that basically, NTs deal with reality from an abstract angle, SFs are experiential, but STs and NFs fight between the two (this is why I was surprised Pedro thought Expat was ESTJ btw). Both of us describe our thought-processes as sort of our brains being at "war" with themselves.
    Uh, it's not "Ann's" point. It's what was on that socion site and how babel translated it. And it was "superficial" as opposed to "depth of penetration", aka internal vs external. The quotes and parenthesis seem to be adding in concepts to help clarify the original word. such as internal aka "depth of penetration"; external aka "superficial".

    This is not the first time I have come across the terms internal vs external being used...and no it does not mean introverted vs extroverted. The best I've been able to use to describe what I think they mean is that external sees the forest, internal sees the trees. External sees the fire destroying the forest, internal sees the animals fleeing. Ok, the last is a bad example. How about external would see the radio parts, internal would be "seeing" the radio waves and/or electricity. I'm still trying to grasp the external vs internal thing, so don't shoot me for making mistakes in my understanding.

    However, it would also be a mistake to disregard "external" merely because it had "superficial" attached to it. Isn't another meaning of superficial something like....surface.
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp

  4. #4
    Exits, pursued by a bear. Animal's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    TIM
    It sneaks up on you
    Posts
    3,051
    Mentioned
    83 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    ... binary business going on there.

    Re: S and T "superficiality"... they really just seem to be saying that N and F focus on the internal (beyond the thing itself and thus "deeper"), while S and T focus on the external (thing as a thing, and thus, "superficial"). This is a rather simplistic way of looking at it, and I'm not sure seeing ST v. NF as a dichotomy isn't pure bullshit anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by anndelise
    This is not the first time I have come across the terms internal vs external being used...and no it does not mean introverted vs extroverted. The best I've been able to use to describe what I think they mean is that external sees the forest, internal sees the trees. External sees the fire destroying the forest, internal sees the animals fleeing. Ok, the last is a bad example. How about external would see the radio parts, internal would be "seeing" the radio waves and/or electricity. I'm still trying to grasp the external vs internal thing, so don't shoot me for making mistakes in my understanding.
    I was thinking along the same lines as "surface" - but if we go back to the NF/ST think, we've got, the internal sees the emotional and conceptual aspects, the external sees the material and the systemic aspects. Both of them are pretty necessary.
    "How could we forget those ancient myths that stand at the beginning of all races, the myths about dragons that at the last moment are transformed into princesses? Perhaps all the dragons in our lives are princesses who are only waiting to see us act, just once, with beauty and courage. Perhaps everything that frightens us is, in its deepest essence, something helpless that wants our love."
    -- Rainer Maria Rilke, Letters to a Young Poet

  5. #5
    escaping anndelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp
    Posts
    6,338
    Mentioned
    210 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Baby
    Both of them are pretty necessary.
    Oh, I agree that both the internal and external are necessary. I do not understand those who say one is "better" than the other nor one is "more intelligent" than the other. I see them as complimentary bits of information.

    I'm not sure how to translate the n't and not in "I'm not sure seeing ST v. NF as a dichotomy isn't pure bullshit anyway."

    So, Baby, you see the
    internal as seeing the emotional and conceptual aspects, and
    external as seeing the material and systemic aspects
    ?
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    6,074
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anndelise
    The quotes and parenthesis seem to be adding in concepts to help clarify the original word. such as internal aka "depth of penetration"; external aka "superficial".
    ... umm, exactly?

    This is not the first time I have come across the terms internal vs external being used...and no it does not mean introverted vs extroverted.
    Well, it should be, and I've said this a million times. I have seen it thrown around, but I have never seen anybody be able to explain it, even after I've asked. Think about, then ISTxs would be PURELY EXTERNAL and ENFxs would be PURELY INTERNAL. That makes no sense at all. ISTxs are more internal then external. This is why I've said socionics has some crack-pot ideas.


    The best I've been able to use to describe what I think they mean is that external sees the forest, internal sees the trees.
    So NF sees the trees and STs sees the forest? What? That's the opposite of what people normally say. I had to actually do a double-take when I read that. Was it a typo?
    MAYBE I'LL BREAK DOWN!!!


    Quote Originally Posted by vague
    Rocky's posts are as enjoyable as having wisdom teeth removed.

  7. #7
    Creepy-pokeball

    Default

    Trees/Forest is perception. At least it was in MBTI. Whether or not it applies here may be another story. I can find the chart if you wish.

  8. #8
    Exits, pursued by a bear. Animal's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    TIM
    It sneaks up on you
    Posts
    3,051
    Mentioned
    83 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky
    The best I've been able to use to describe what I think they mean is that external sees the forest, internal sees the trees.
    So NF sees the trees and STs sees the forest? What? That's the opposite of what people normally say. I had to actually do a double-take when I read that. Was it a typo?
    I don't think she literally meant trees/forest but rather the internal sees what lies within, the external sees what it is without.

    But yes, to take the metaphor at face value - the internal functions see the conceptual ("forest"), the external functions see the system ("lots of trees"). As you can see, both are very valuable and necessary.
    "How could we forget those ancient myths that stand at the beginning of all races, the myths about dragons that at the last moment are transformed into princesses? Perhaps all the dragons in our lives are princesses who are only waiting to see us act, just once, with beauty and courage. Perhaps everything that frightens us is, in its deepest essence, something helpless that wants our love."
    -- Rainer Maria Rilke, Letters to a Young Poet

  9. #9
    escaping anndelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp
    Posts
    6,338
    Mentioned
    210 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The best I've been able to use to describe what I think they mean is that external sees the forest, internal sees the trees.
    So NF sees the trees and STs sees the forest? What? That's the opposite of what people normally say. I had to actually do a double-take when I read that. Was it a typo?
    It wasn't a typo, just my trying to show one possible example of what it might mean to look at the forest vs looking into the forest.
    Do you have a better example? (cuz I sure could use one )
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp

  10. #10
    escaping anndelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp
    Posts
    6,338
    Mentioned
    210 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Perhaps another example would be words...
    there are those who seem to take literal the words that are used, and those who take the concepts within.

    How many arguments are there on this forum in which person A complains that person B is "reading into" what A wrote, and B is complaining because A is taking what B wrote too literal and not looking at what is meant by it?
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp

  11. #11
    Creepy-pokeball

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anndelise
    Perhaps another example would be words...
    there are those who seem to take literal the words that are used, and those who take the concepts within.

    How many arguments are there on this forum in which person A complains that person B is "reading into" what A wrote, and B is complaining because A is taking what B wrote too literal and not looking at what is meant by it?
    A lot. I hate literal meaning.

  12. #12
    escaping anndelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp
    Posts
    6,338
    Mentioned
    210 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Oh, and regarding the internal external depth vs superfical thing....

    N and F are both internal. Aren't NFs constantly being accused of living in a clouds or not being grounded in reality? of being too idealistic, yadda yadda yadda.

    S and T are both external. Aren't STs constantly being accused of being "too" grounded? to literal?



    It's not that NFs can't ground themselves, nor that STs can't idealize things, that NFs don't see the external nor the STs don't see the internal.. both are capable of doing that....but in many cases it's a matter of one attends more to one side of the dichotomy. (i should mention here that i see the dichotomies as being something like a sliding scale... external-------------internal where are you/she/he/me on that line?)

    It might not just be a matter of attendance either...perhaps it's importance or preference or which is more real?
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp

  13. #13

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    6,074
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anndelise
    The best I've been able to use to describe what I think they mean is that external sees the forest, internal sees the trees.
    So NF sees the trees and STs sees the forest? What? That's the opposite of what people normally say. I had to actually do a double-take when I read that. Was it a typo?
    It wasn't a typo, just my trying to show one possible example of what it might mean to look at the forest vs looking into the forest.
    Do you have a better example? (cuz I sure could use one )
    I don't have a better example because... well, I don't believe in it. Like I said, I've never seen a socionist try and explain or describe what they meant by "internal/external"... I have just seen them thrown around. Very frustraing. I don't even think they understand themselves, it's just something they do because it's always been done.
    MAYBE I'LL BREAK DOWN!!!


    Quote Originally Posted by vague
    Rocky's posts are as enjoyable as having wisdom teeth removed.

  14. #14

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    6,074
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anndelise
    Oh, and regarding the internal external depth vs superfical thing....

    N and F are both internal. Aren't NFs constantly being accused of living in a clouds or not being grounded in reality? of being too idealistic, yadda yadda yadda.

    S and T are both external. Aren't STs constantly being accused of being "too" grounded? to literal?



    It's not that NFs can't ground themselves, nor that STs can't idealize things, that NFs don't see the external nor the STs don't see the internal.. both are capable of doing that....but in many cases it's a matter of one attends more to one side of the dichotomy. (i should mention here that i see the dichotomies as being something like a sliding scale... external-------------internal where are you/she/he/me on that line?)

    It might not just be a matter of attendance either...perhaps it's importance or preference or which is more real?
    NTs are more idealistic then NFs.

    And even if it is a line, ISTJs and ISTPs would not be on the external side of it, that's for sure.
    MAYBE I'LL BREAK DOWN!!!


    Quote Originally Posted by vague
    Rocky's posts are as enjoyable as having wisdom teeth removed.

  15. #15

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    6,074
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anndelise
    Perhaps another example would be words...
    there are those who seem to take literal the words that are used, and those who take the concepts within.

    How many arguments are there on this forum in which person A complains that person B is "reading into" what A wrote, and B is complaining because A is taking what B wrote too literal and not looking at what is meant by it?
    There's no difference between "literal" and "reading into" in terms of words... EVERYONE reads into words, you have to, that's part of reading... even if you call someone "literal", it's just basically an accuse to use to say that they read into something you said in a way that you didn't want them to. In fact, the reading into things again some could also consider more Introversion then Extraversion.
    MAYBE I'LL BREAK DOWN!!!


    Quote Originally Posted by vague
    Rocky's posts are as enjoyable as having wisdom teeth removed.

  16. #16

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    6,074
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Baby
    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky
    The best I've been able to use to describe what I think they mean is that external sees the forest, internal sees the trees.
    So NF sees the trees and STs sees the forest? What? That's the opposite of what people normally say. I had to actually do a double-take when I read that. Was it a typo?
    I don't think she literally meant trees/forest but rather the internal sees what lies within, the external sees what it is without.

    But yes, to take the metaphor at face value - the internal functions see the conceptual ("forest"), the external functions see the system ("lots of trees"). As you can see, both are very valuable and necessary.
    Well, what you said is the oppostie of what Ann originally said.
    MAYBE I'LL BREAK DOWN!!!


    Quote Originally Posted by vague
    Rocky's posts are as enjoyable as having wisdom teeth removed.

  17. #17
    escaping anndelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp
    Posts
    6,338
    Mentioned
    210 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky
    even if you call someone "literal", it's just basically an accuse to use to say that they read into something you said in a way that you didn't want them to
    I will assume that you are including within this sentence the claims made against those who "read too much" into something you've written because they read it in a way that you didn't want them to.


    In fact, the reading into things again some could also consider more Introversion then Extraversion.
    Wait, one moment you say that reading into things vs taking things literal doesn't really exist or is just an excuse, and the next you are saying that reading into things would be more introversion than extroversion....leaving extraversion with what??? not reading into things? taking things literal?



    Perhaps a better way of looking at it would be the degree of how much information is added to a set of words. If I speak in metaphors, and a person takes that metaphor as being exactly what I was implying....so I switch to a different metaphor to describe the concept I'm thinking, and that same person again gets stuck on the metaphor as being exactly what I am implying....so I switch metaphors yet again, and yet again and yet again...at what point, Rocky, is it safe to say that this person is taking my metaphors literally? At what point will this person finally grasp that each metaphor is just another way of attempting to describe the same concept?

    I don't know how to take an abstracted concept and show it to you concretely. But just because I can't show it to you...doesn't mean that that concept doesn't exist.

    However, what I can do is to ask you to look at the russian terms for when they are referring to introversion/extroversion...and the russian terms for when they are referring to internal/external, and from there you can see in writing that the written styles of the terms are completely AND consistently different. They do not mix these terms when referring to introversion/extroversion, nor do they mix these terms when referring to internal/external. The consistency of this shows me at least that they are referring to different concepts. (Much like their sensing vs feeling words. While babel and other translators translate both russian terms as "sensation", each term in fact means something different. Some of the russian sites even warn about this happening.)



    Would using the terms implicit vs explicit make any difference to you?
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp

  18. #18
    escaping anndelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp
    Posts
    6,338
    Mentioned
    210 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky
    I don't have a better example because... well, I don't believe in it. Like I said, I've never seen a socionist try and explain or describe what they meant by "internal/external"... I have just seen them thrown around. Very frustraing. I don't even think they understand themselves, it's just something they do because it's always been done.
    What then, would you say separates the NF from the ST?


    The dichotomies given were, I think, designed to define clear differences between N, F, S, T. Not between Si, Se, etc. The most we can abstract from the dichotomies given are the NT, NF, SF, ST.

    From the dichotomies given, there are a few ways in which we can discuss NT vs NF vs SF vs ST, how each are alike and how they differ.

    NTs have the abstracted internal and external
    SFs have the involved internal and external

    NFs have the internal abstracted and involved
    STs have the external abstracted and involved

    Based on this information, I see something along the lines of:

    NTs deal with abstracted information, but not so much the involvements.
    SFs deal with the involvements, but not so much the abstracted information.

    (Note: It's not that they can't, it's that unless either of them learn to make use of their complementing functions, then it's difficult for them.
    Also: one of the common things which I see NeTi talk about is wanting to lose themselves in experiences, as if it's something normally difficult for them to do. Also, one of the common complaints about NTs is the so-called NT robot-ness. Also, one of the common things which people complain about SFs are that they can't seem to abstract info, or understand someone else's abstractions, etc. Personally I find these complaints to be based on extreme behaviors and not general behaviors.)

    I think this is one reason why socionics thinks that NTs and SFs make a dual pair, because together they are capable of seeing all four aspects of abstracted, involved, internal, and external.


    NFs deal with internal information but not so much the external.
    STs deal with external information but not so much the internal.

    (Note: again, it's not that they can't, it's that unless either of them learn to make use of their complementing functions, then it's difficult for them.
    Also: just to be fair, I'll repeat the common complaints against NFs and STs. One of the common complaints about NFs is their constant head in the clouds or not being grounded in reality. One of the constant complaints about STs is that they are too concrete, or too literal. (yes, I know, Rocky doesn't like the term literal….but it doesn't change that that's a common complaint against STs)

    It's not that NFs can't ground themselves, nor that STs can't read into things, that NFs don't see the external nor the STs don't see the internal.. both are capable of doing that....but in many cases it's a matter of one attends more to one side of the dichotomy. It might not just be a matter of attendance either...perhaps it's one is more important than the other, or preferred, or which is considered more real?

    I think this is one reason why socionics thinks that NFs and STs make a dual pair, because together they are capable of seeing all four aspects of abstracted, involved, internal, and external.
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp

  19. #19

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    6,074
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anndelise
    In fact, the reading into things again some could also consider more Introversion then Extraversion.
    Wait, one moment you say that reading into things vs taking things literal doesn't really exist or is just an excuse, and the next you are saying that reading into things would be more introversion than extroversion....leaving extraversion with what??? not reading into things? taking things literal?
    No, I said Introversion in the sense of everybody using it. Extraversion doesn't so much read into things, as it tries to express itself and show the world. This is how Jung defines Extraversion and Introversion, not me, and he coined the words. Jung said that basically Extraversion was the expressive side of the coin, and that Introversion was the abstracting side (note: "abstracting" used here is a completely different word from "abstract".)

    However, what I can do is to ask you to look at the russian terms for when they are referring to introversion/extroversion...and the russian terms for when they are referring to internal/external, and from there you can see in writing that the written styles of the terms are completely AND consistently different.
    Umm... that's the problem. I *haven't* seen a Russian definition of internal/external. I've asked everyone, too. I've asked Rick. No one seems to know what it means. If you find a real definition, post it.
    MAYBE I'LL BREAK DOWN!!!


    Quote Originally Posted by vague
    Rocky's posts are as enjoyable as having wisdom teeth removed.

  20. #20

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    6,074
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anndelise
    NTs have the abstracted internal and external
    SFs have the involved internal and external
    I agree with this.

    Quote Originally Posted by ann
    NFs have the internal abstracted and involved
    STs have the external abstracted and involved
    I do not agree with this.

    Quote Originally Posted by annabanana
    (Note: again, it's not that they can't, it's that unless either of them learn to make use of their complementing functions, then it's difficult for them.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky
    And even if it is a line, ISTJs and ISTPs would not be on the external side of it, that's for sure.
    MAYBE I'LL BREAK DOWN!!!


    Quote Originally Posted by vague
    Rocky's posts are as enjoyable as having wisdom teeth removed.

Posting Permissions

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