Reinin dichotomies

[ae1905]

Hi. I've been looking at socionics theory for a few days and I'm perplexed by the labels on the Reinin dichotomies. The dichotomy made up of NT, for example, is called "aristocratic-democratic" and consists of NTs and SFs (democratic) and NFs and STs (aristocratic). Why is NT democratic? ENTj, for example, is stereotypically focused on getting groups of people to do his bidding, and isn't particularly concerned about them as individuals. INFjs, otoh, see themselves are individuals and relate to others on this basis.

And NT is an example of a dichotomy formed by combining two basic dichotomies. What about the dichotomies made up of three basic dichotomies, like ENT, which is labelled "positivistic-negativistic"? How does the idea of "positivistic" come out of the sociotypes in this group? What exactly do ENTX, INFX, ESFX, and ISTX have in common that can be called "positivistic"? Ditto for INTX, ENFX, ISFX, and ESTX who are called "negativistic"? In what way are these eight sociotypes "negativistic"? Where in their IMs or model functions does this come from?

[Mega]

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

I hope it answers your questions because I can't.

[ae1905]

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

I hope it answers your questions because I can't.

I've seen that and, no, it doesn't answer my questions. That link doesn't explain how the labels emerge from the basic dichotomies or from the functional structures and IMs of sociotypes. For example, E is simple to understand because extroversion is a basic dichotomy supported by a clear concept. NT is not so easy to understand and is not supported by a clear concept explained in terms of the basic dichotomies, model functions, or IMs. It's this explanation that I am seeking. Without it, "democratic-aristocratic" and the other Reinin labels are just labels someone pulled out of his ass.

[Mega]

I have no idea

[strangeling]

I don't know, but it would be good to know the epistemological background for the dichotomies. Then maybe they would make cohesive sense.

[xerx]

Hi. I've been looking at socionics theory for a few days and I'm perplexed by the labels on the Reinin dichotomies. The dichotomy made up of NT, for example, is called "aristocratic-democratic" and consists of NTs and SFs (democratic) and NFs and STs (aristocratic). Why is NT democratic? ENTj, for example, is stereotypically focused on getting groups of people to do his bidding, and isn't particularly concerned about them as individuals. INFjs, otoh, see themselves are individuals and relate to others on this basis.

It's even worse when people build their own elaborate theories around them based solely on the name of the dichotomy. "Aristocratic" gets conflated with a sense of hierarchy and the romanticization of elitist vices as in a real aristocracy, never mind the way Alpha and Gamma leaders have behaved in the past.

[mu4]

Ignore the labels, they're best attempt at the describing information patterns within types.

My observation of democratic/aristocratic

Democratic = Internal + External function within each mental block
Aristocratic = External + External or Internal + Internal within each mental block

Aristocratic quadras contain individuals that focus on things in a pure fashion in regards to internal/external create often very stark contrasts of thinking. NF function being only internal information focuses on transcending material reality thru topics such as religion, art, and other humanitarian pursuits. ST functions with only external information focus on the material, with domains such as labor, war, political struggle and survival being pursuits.

These stark contrasts in thinking often lead the clubs and their associated dual pairs and their opposing quadra into forming social division as the pursuit and exploration of these purely material and purely transcendent values are intensified.

I won't go into democratic types here since I'm a bit tired and there are articles.

There are many speculations and thought experiments that can be produced from these patterns as well as general trends and historical observations to be made. However the basis of the reinin dichotomies are these information patterns which half the types have and the other half don't.

[Pookie]

The labels dont matter. You can call them whatever you want and it doesnt change what the point is behind it. The point being to split an observable difference in behavior, accurately, into two distinct boxes. What you call those boxes is unimportant.

If i point to the moon, you are a fool if you look at my finger. Looking at the finger is effectively questioning the label's name. The label needed a name, Who cares what its called?

[ae1905]

The labels dont matter. You can call them whatever you want and it doesnt change what the point is behind it. The point being to split an observable difference in behavior, accurately, into two distinct boxes. What you call those boxes is unimportant.

If i point to the moon, you are a fool if you look at my finger. Looking at the finger is effectively questioning the label's name. The label needed a name, Who cares what its called?

You should've taken your own advice and looked past my finger to the point I was making: what observable differences in behavior distinguish each of the 11 Reinin dichotomies? For example, what do NTs and SFs share that NFs and STs don't? Since you see these behavioral distinctions so clearly, maybe you can enlighten me, pls? All 11 if you will.

[ae1905]

Ignore the labels, they're best attempt at the describing information patterns within types.

My observation of democratic/aristocratic

Democratic = Internal + External function within each mental block
Aristocratic = External + External or Internal + Internal within each mental block

What do you mean by "internal" and "external"? It seems like you use "internal" to mean "subjective" and apply it to feeling and intuition, and "external" to mean "objective" and apply it to thinking and sensing. But Si is internal and Fe is external. In fact, Fi as defined in socionics as relationships is also external. Ne is external. And so on.

[ae1905]

It's even worse when people build their own elaborate theories around them based solely on the name of the dichotomy. "Aristocratic" gets conflated with a sense of hierarchy and the romanticization of elitist vices as in a real aristocracy, never mind the way Alpha and Gamma leaders have behaved in the past.

You mean theories like Gulenko's Cognitive Styles?

What's in a name? That which we call a theory by any other name would smell as fishy...

[Pookie]

You should've taken your own advice and looked past my finger to the point I was making: what observable differences in behavior distinguish each of the 11 Reinin dichotomies? For example, what do NTs and SFs share that NFs and STs don't? Since you see these behavioral distinctions so clearly, maybe you can enlighten me, pls? All 11 if you will.

The second post in the thread answered that as best as you'll get without figuring it out yourself. But you dismissed it because it didnt explain how the labels emerged. That's why i talked about the labels.

Notice how everyone coming in here to help you, you're dismissing and/or antagonizing? Thats probably why you don't understand this. You have to empty your cup if you want to taste someone else's tea.

[anndelise]

What do you mean by "internal" and "external"? It seems like you use "internal" to mean "subjective" and apply it to feeling and intuition, and "external" to mean "objective" and apply it to thinking and sensing. But Si is internal and Fe is external. In fact, Fi as defined in socionics as relationships is also external. Ne is external. And so on.

In socionics, internal/external doesn't mean Xi/Xe.
To answer your question, look up the "aspects of reality"
http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p...cts_of_reality

Statics Things at rest
Dynamics Things at motion
Bodies Xe Things as independent of any subject
Fields Xi Things as dependent of subject - i.e. ties between bodies
External S,T Explicit, directly sensible content of reality
Internal N,F Implicit, indirectly percievable content of reality
Irrational S,N
Rational T,F

The above skips the abstract elements (N,T ) and the involvement elements (S,F ).
An example of those are words and concepts and theories are examples of abstract elements. While our senses and emotions are involved elements.
An example: I can talk about what I see, feel, experience and you may or may not be able to imagine what I'm describing. But you could never see, feel, experience exactly what I am.

S and N are perceptual elements.
S refers to perceptual information that requires personal involvement in the experience/understanding of. It is explicit in that it is relatively easily communicable to others by having them use their own senses to perceive what is being referred to. If I point at two cars about to collide, you can see for yourself them colliding. If I run a piece of cloth along your hand, you can experience for yourself what I mean when I say this cloth is scratchy.
Si info attends to explicit fields in motion/flux/change. (Well-Defined Experiential Flux)
Se info attends to explicit bodies at rest. (Well-Defined Experiential Qualities)

N refers to perceptual information that is abstract, but not well defined. It is conceptual perception. The best I can do is use analogies and metaphors to try to communicate what I'm perceiving. I can imply something, but it would require using an explicit abstract element (T) to try to clearly define what I'm conceiving.
Ni info attends to implicit fields in motion/flux/change. (Implied Conceptual Flux)
Ne info attends to implicit bodies at rest. (Implied Conceptual Qualities)

F and T are rational elements. Think digital. They can break down a perception into distinct pieces, or build up a perception from distinct pieces.
F refers to rational elements that require personal involvement but are not easily communicable. This is an implicit element, meaning at best it can imply the info being considered. It is what we feel, not in the sensory sense, but in the affect sense. Ethics considers how something or someone is affected. An object/person's orientation to other objects/people is based on how they are affected by it.
Fi info attends to implicit fields at rest. The relatively consistent and long term affect of an object upon another object, or an action upon an object. (Implied Affectual Ties)
Fe info attends to implicit bodies in motion. The momentary and changing affects occuring within/to an object/body. (Implied Affectual Flux)

T refers to rational elements that are abstract but relatively easily communicable. It is an explicit element, and conceptual. We use words, numbers, symbols, diagrams, etc to communicate a concept we have in mind. It helps if we clearly define our words/symbols for better ease of communication. For example,

* you interpreted that 'external' meant Xe elements.
* But socionics's aspects define 'external' as 'explicit, directly sensible',
* and defines external elements as being S, T.
* And Socionics defines Xe elements as being 'bodies, things independent of any subject'.

Which means that you are not using socionics' definitions, which means you will run into problems when trying to understand socionics concepts and/or when trying to communicate about these concepts. As you will be referring to different concepts than those who use socionics definitions. Disagreements and misunderstandings are thus inevitable until you begin using the appropriate socionics terms to refer to the appropriate socionics concept.
Ti info attends to explicit fields at rest. Logic is a common example of this, as formal logic defines into great detail about how each node is related to another node. "All men are humans. Some humans are women. Therefore some men are women." This would lead us into detailing out the fields between women, men, and humans, so we could arrive at a more correct conclusion than the one given. Socionics is a Ti theory. Model A explicitely states how each element is dependent on, or ties to, another element. (Explicit Conceptual Ties)
Te info attends to explicit bodies in motion. It is abstract, so we are referring to conceptual bodies. Algorithmic logic is a common example of Te. It explicitely defines the movement/changes of each conceptual body. When combined with the interdependent fields of each bodies's actions, one can then figure out how best to influence or alter the system. (Explicit Conceptual Flux)


Note: I am aware that some of my wording and phrasing could use some refining to make the ideas and concepts more clear.

[ae1905]

The second post in the thread answered that as best as you'll get without figuring it out yourself. But you dismissed it because it didnt explain how the labels emerged. That's why i talked about the labels.

Notice how everyone coming in here to help you, you're dismissing and/or antagonizing? Thats probably why you don't understand this. You have to empty your cup if you want to taste someone else's tea.

The link in the second post begs the question. And if you knew anything, you'd say it instead of pointing fingers. Kindly stay off my thread if you have nothing better to do than stick your finger in your nose.

[ae1905]

In socionics, internal/external doesn't mean Xi/Xe.

I didn't say they did.

To answer your question, look up the "aspects of reality"
http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p...cts_of_reality

The above skips the abstract elements (N,T ) and the involvement elements (S,F ).
An example of those are words and concepts and theories are examples of abstract elements. While our senses and emotions are involved elements.
An example: I can talk about what I see, feel, experience and you may or may not be able to imagine what I'm describing. But you could never see, feel, experience exactly what I am.

S and N are perceptual elements.
S refers to perceptual information that requires personal involvement in the experience/understanding of. It is explicit in that it is relatively easily communicable to others by having them use their own senses to perceive what is being referred to. If I point at two cars about to collide, you can see for yourself them colliding. If I run a piece of cloth along your hand, you can experience for yourself what I mean when I say this cloth is scratchy.
Si info attends to explicit fields in motion/flux/change. (Well-Defined Experiential Flux)
Se info attends to explicit bodies at rest. (Well-Defined Experiential Qualities)

This is what wikisocion has to say about Si:

Description of Si from "Dual Nature of Man" by A. Augusta

White (introverted) sensing

We view an object's internal state as the relationship between events that precondition one another. This element perceives information about how processes are reflected by one's internal state. This includes the sense of one's own condition and the sensations of people evoked by this interdependence. Interaction in space is nothing more than a reflection of one object in another. Objects reflect in other objects, evoking certain sensations in one another. Such an individual perceives external information in form of sensations evoked by ongoing events. For example, the sensation of pain is essentially the reflection within a person's mind of a relationship between his functioning body and a process occurring in some part of the body that impedes this functioning.

Si is a subjective, internal response to perceptions. Others will have their own internal Si responses to the same external objects so that simply pointing at an object does not convey the Si content of perception. "It would require an explicit abstract element (T) to clearly define what I am perceiving."

N refers to perceptual information that is abstract, but not well defined. It is conceptual perception. The best I can do is use analogies and metaphors to try to communicate what I'm perceiving. I can imply something, but it would require using an explicit abstract element (T) to try to clearly define what I'm conceiving.
Ni info attends to implicit fields in motion/flux/change. (Implied Conceptual Flux)
Ne info attends to implicit bodies at rest. (Implied Conceptual Qualities)

This is what wiki has to say about Ne:

Description of Ne from "Dual Nature of Man" by A. Augusta

Black (extroverted) intuition
Perceives information about objects' potential energy — for example, information about the physical and mental abilities and potential of a person. This perception grants the ability to understand the structure of objects and phenomena and grasp their inner content. This element determines a person's ability or inability to see the real potential energy of one's surroundings.

Inasmuch as potential is implicit I would agree intuition is internal. However, many abstract T concepts categorize a large number of objects by the qualities they share. How is this T categorization by common properties any different than Ne intuitions about like objects?

F and T are rational elements. Think digital. They can break down a perception into distinct pieces, or build up a perception from distinct pieces.

F refers to rational elements that require personal involvement but are not easily communicable. This is an implicit element, meaning at best it can imply the info being considered. It is what we feel, not in the sensory sense, but in the affect sense. Ethics considers how something or someone is affected. An object/person's orientation to other objects/people is based on how they are affected by it.
Fi info attends to implicit fields at rest. The relatively consistent and long term affect of an object upon another object, or an action upon an object. (Implied Affectual Ties)
Fe info attends to implicit bodies in motion. The momentary and changing affects occuring within/to an object/body. (Implied Affectual Flux)

Why is the statement, "I am sad" more difficult to communicate than "the sky is blue"? Also, people are capable of empathy where they can feel what others feel. How is this different than thinking what others think?

T refers to rational elements that are abstract but relatively easily communicable. It is an explicit element, and conceptual. We use words, numbers, symbols, diagrams, etc to communicate a concept we have in mind. It helps if we clearly define our words/symbols for better ease of communication. For example,

* you interpreted that 'external' meant Xe elements.
* But socionics's aspects define 'external' as 'explicit, directly sensible',
* and defines external elements as being S, T.
* And Socionics defines Xe elements as being 'bodies, things independent of any subject'.

Which means that you are not using socionics' definitions, which means you will run into problems when trying to understand socionics concepts and/or when trying to communicate about these concepts. As you will be referring to different concepts than those who use socionics definitions. Disagreements and misunderstandings are thus inevitable until you begin using the appropriate socionics terms to refer to the appropriate socionics concept.
Ti info attends to explicit fields at rest. Logic is a common example of this, as formal logic defines into great detail about how each node is related to another node. "All men are humans. Some humans are women. Therefore some men are women." This would lead us into detailing out the fields between women, men, and humans, so we could arrive at a more correct conclusion than the one given. Socionics is a Ti theory. Model A explicitely states how each element is dependent on, or ties to, another element. (Explicit Conceptual Ties)
Te info attends to explicit bodies in motion. It is abstract, so we are referring to conceptual bodies. Algorithmic logic is a common example of Te. It explicitely defines the movement/changes of each conceptual body. When combined with the interdependent fields of each bodies's actions, one can then figure out how best to influence or alter the system. (Explicit Conceptual Flux)

Which is easier to communicate? "I am sad"? Or the General Theory of Relativity? Both thinking and feeling rely on words to communicate their information. How is this different?

[mu4]

What do you mean by "internal" and "external"? It seems like you use "internal" to mean "subjective" and apply it to feeling and intuition, and "external" to mean "objective" and apply it to thinking and sensing. But Si is internal and Fe is external. In fact, Fi as defined in socionics as relationships is also external. Ne is external. And so on.

You can't equate the use of the terms internal and external with subjective and objective, but it's related.

I/E is about attitude orientation towards subjective/objective.

I is orientation towards the subjective, and E is orientation towards the objective.

Internal and external is not this orientation towards subjectivity or objectivity, but there is a relation to subjectivity and objectivity that is not described by the orientation which is imo what is described by internal and external, I am currently thinking on the proper way to describe this as clear as possible. So you're going to have to wait or figure it out yourself.

I'm not sure what you are doing here at the underlined, because that's not what internal and external is. The subjectivity of the functions Introtim and functions Extrotim is the orientation of the function but the orientation of a function is not necessarily the whole.

The external Extrotim functions are by observation the most objective, and and the internal Extrotim functions less so, and , this is something that we can say is observable generally, but why this is so, and how to properly express it clearly is something that is requiring some thought.

[mu4]

The link in the second post begs the question. And if you knew anything, you'd say it instead of pointing fingers. Kindly stay off my thread if you have nothing better to do than stick your finger in your nose.

You can be less hostile to people who are trying to explain to you in good faith.

[anndelise]

Si is a subjective, internal response to perceptions. Others will have their own internal Si responses to the same external objects so that simply pointing at an object does not convey the Si content of perception. "It would require an explicit abstract element (T) to clearly define what I am perceiving."

Internal in that quote is not the same thing as the aspect labeled "internal".
This is one of the problems with abstract information. Sometimes a word has one meaning here, and another meaning there. Which is why context is important. There is the Aspect of Reality labeled "Internal", and the generic common use of 'internal'. They don't necessarily mean the same thing, especially when you consider that these words had to go through a language to language best fit process. Cross-referencing the russian word for the Aspect of "Internal" gave "implicit" consistently, in a variety of dictionaries (medical, legal, common)

Also, it doesn't require an explicit abstract element to define what you mean by "scratchy". And in order to communicate it, you would have to draw from your own experiences of the sensation of "scratchy". You would more easily define to the other person what you mean by "scratchy", by having them run their hands along something that you consider scratchy, so that they can feel it for themselves.

Why is the statement, "I am sad" more difficult to communicate than "the sky is blue"? Also, people are capable of empathy where they feel what others feel. How is this different than thinking what someone thinks?

Try it for yourself.
Define for us what you mean by "sad".
Define for us what you mean by "blue".

When you empathize with someone, you are not necessarily feeling what they feel. You are feeling an approximation of it. Your mirror neurons are kicking in, but that doesn't mean you are feeling what they are feeling. You see a smile, your smiling neurons kick in. But what those neurons trigger and what the smile means is individualistic, as it'll be based upon your own experiences and your own preferences, which is necessarily different from someone else's experiences and preferences. I say necessarily because you two are in seperate bodies, have been in different places, with different people, in different situations and different contexts. At best you can get an idea of what they are feeling, and feel a resemblance of what they are feeling, but you cannot actually feel what they are feeling...because you are not them.

You also can't think what someone thinks. You can draw the same conclusions. You can have similar beliefs. But the experiences you each are drawing from will differ. You can read the same books, but each person will remember different parts of it, and get different meanings out of it, according to their personal experiences. In this way you can get different types who agree and believe the same thing, though they might describe it differently. And you can get identicals that go through very similar processes but arrive at completely different conclusions.

The aspects and elements themselves are simplistic, but when they interact, as they do in a person, then things get more complex.

Which is easier to communicate? "I am sad"? Or the General Theory of Relativity?

Your example is that of simplicity vs complexity. (sad vs general theory of relativity)
When you define what you mean when you say you are sad, then we can get into this more.

Both thinking and feeling rely on words to communicate their information. How is this different?

Please post a video of you communicating that you are sad, without using words.
Then post a video of you communicating the general theory of relativity, without using words, not even written words.

Now, admittedly, T and F both use symbols and/or signals to get their meaning across. This is one reason why they are both labeled as "rational" aspects. But one is focusing on the implicit affect, and the other on an explicit concept.

Internal and external are essentially identical to aristocratic and democratic; they're both defined by the NT dichotomy. So why not just call aristocratic-democratic "internal-external"?

No, they're not. Using the Aspects of Reality,
the Internal elements are N&F. NFs are double Internal, they belong to the Aristocratic quadras.
The External elements are S&T. STs are double External, they belong to the Aristocratic quadras.
The Involvement elements are S&F. SFs are double Involvement, they belong to the Democratic quadras.
The Abstract elements are N&T. NTs are double Abstract, they belong to the Democratic quadras.

[anndelise]

I'll add in that when people attempt to approach socionics with the concepts of subjective vs objective in mind, they inevitably run into problems with understanding socionics. This is because there are multiple meanings to subjective, and multiple to objective.

For example,
Sometimes they interpret internal as meaning subjective, and external as meaning objective.
Then later they interpret the involvement as meaning subjective, and abstract as meaning objective.
Then they run into the reinin dichotomies where Ti/Fe quadras are the "subjective" quadras. And Fi/Te as the "objective" quadras.
So they run into that...i think it's called "equivocation" error in logic. Where they'll use subjective to mean one thing in one sentence, and then it'll mean something else in a different sentence.

Edited to add:
Technically, every person processes subjective information, and cannot truly be objective. Even a computer is subjective. Why do i say this? Because a computer can only process information it has been programed with, or programmed to handle. It cannot handle information that it has no programming for. Individuals are the same. A person is programed by the combination of their individual genetic expressions, and their experiences.

When we communicate symbolically, such as using words, we have to pick and choose what part of our experience/concept we will attempt to codify. This requires abstracting from our experience/concept, and labeling it, then communicating it, in which the other person hears some of those words, connects the labels to their own experiences, and then draws meaning from whichever personal experiences were connected to. This is why we need our abstract symbols well-defined in order to communicate via words. (As such, each person must use T elements in order to communicate via words.) But words are not the only thing which we communicate. We can communicate via body language, speed of speech, intonation, etc. To interpret these parts of the communication, one must attend to F elements in some way. And each of these influences the meanings/concepts we wind up perceiving from the communication attempts. (Our N.) Other ways of communicating include getting the other person to see, touch, hear, taste, or otherwise personally and physically experience what we are trying to convey. (S)

[ae1905]

You can be less hostile to people who are trying to explain to you in good faith.

He isn't explaining anything; what's worse, he is taking my words out of context to suck up to higher-status members. Let the sycophant suck up someone else's thread.

[mu4]

He isn't explaining anything; what's worse, he is taking my words out of context to suck up to higher-status members. Let the sycophant suck up someone else's thread.

You can be less hostile to people who are trying to explain to you in good faith.

[ae1905]

Internal in that quote is not the same thing as the aspect labeled "internal".

Yes, it is. Si is internal, or implicit, in the sense you do not have access to someone else's Si by simply perceiving an external object--ie, his Si is not "directly sensible". Si depends on the user's experience which is not accessible to others, unless he uses T abstract elements to communicate it.

Also, it doesn't require an explicit abstract element to define what you mean by "scratchy". And in order to communicate it, you would have to draw from your own experiences of the sensation of "scratchy". You would more easily define to the other person what you mean by "scratchy", by having them run their hands along something that you consider scratchy, so that they can feel it for themselves.

First, no, because you have no idea if his idea of scratchy is the same as yours unless he explicitly tells you "using T abstract elements". Second, scratchy is more Se than Si, like the color blue. A better example for Si would be memorabilia or possessions or memories that have special meaning to the owner. These relations between people and things are unique to these people and these things and are not directly sensible to outsiders.

Try it for yourself.
Define for us what you mean by "sad".
Define for us what you mean by "blue".

Blue depends on each person's experience of the color blue, just as sad depends on each user's experience of sad. No difference between the two insofar as cognition goes.

When you empathize with someone, you are not necessarily feeling what they feel. You are feeling an approximation of it. Your mirror neurons are kicking in, but that doesn't mean you are feeling what they are feeling. You see a smile, your smiling neurons kick in. But what those neurons trigger and what the smile means is individualistic, as it'll be based upon your own experiences and your own preferences, which is necessarily different from someone else's experiences and preferences. I say necessarily because you two are in seperate bodies, have been in different places, with different people, in different situations and different contexts. At best you can get an idea of what they are feeling, and feel a resemblance of what they are feeling, but you cannot actually feel what they are feeling...because you are not them.

Same things can be said for thoughts. What we think of one concept depends on what we learned in the past. Two people may have very different ideas about the same concept, and so on.

You also can't think what someone thinks. You can draw the same conclusions. You can have similar beliefs. But the experiences you each are drawing from will differ. You can read the same books, but each person will remember different parts of it, and get different meanings out of it, according to their personal experiences. In this way you can get different types who agree and believe the same thing, though they might describe it differently. And you can get identicals that go through very similar processes but arrive at completely different conclusions.

Right. So T depends on the person and is implicit like F or N--ie, T is not "directly sensible", it depends on interpretation, like F and N do.

Your example is that of simplicity vs complexity. (sad vs general theory of relativity)
When you define what you mean when you say you are sad, then we can get into this more.

My point is that T abstract elements can be very complex, so much so that most people cannot understand them even when they are explained. Meanwhile, most emotional states are common to all humans and are readily expressed and understood. So T elements are not necessarily easier to communicate than F. In fact, T concepts can be just as fuzzy as F, if not more, since T concepts are often far more abstract and far removed from perceptions and experience than F is. So, if anything, F is easier to understand than T. F is more "directly sensible" than many T concepts.

Please post a video of you communicating that you are sad, without using words.
Then post a video of you communicating the general theory of relativity, without using words, not even written words.

Now, admittedly, T and F both use symbols and/or signals to get their meaning across. This is one reason why they are both labeled as "rational" aspects. But one is focusing on the implicit affect, and the other on an explicit concept.

"Explicit" means "directly sensible". What is directly sensible about abstract concepts like justice or democracy or higher dimesions? Affects, otoh, can be directly felt in ourselves and observed in others. If you see a person crying, how is that less "directly sensible" than "democracy"?

No, they're not. Using the Aspects of Reality,
the Internal elements are N&F. NFs are double Internal, they belong to the Aristocratic quadras.
The External elements are S&T. STs are double External, they belong to the Aristocratic quadras.
The Involvement elements are S&F. SFs are double Involvement, they belong to the Democratic quadras.
The Abstract elements are N&T. NTs are double Abstract, they belong to the Democratic quadras.

Point taken. I was in a rush and wrote this w/o thinking. How do you interpret the aristocratic-democratic dichotomy in terms of internal-external? What do external-external and internal-internal have in common that can be called "aristocratic"? How does this quality manifest in cognition and behavior?

[ae1905]

You can be less hostile to people who are trying to explain to you in good faith.

Show me one thing he tried to "explain"?

[mu4]

Show me one thing he tried to "explain"?

The labels dont matter. You can call them whatever you want and it doesnt change what the point is behind it. The point being to split an observable difference in behavior, accurately, into two distinct boxes. What you call those boxes is unimportant.

That's 1 thing. If you don't like the explanation, you can have someone spoon feed you their version.

You can be less hostile to people who are trying to explain to you in good faith.

[ae1905]

That's 1 thing. If you don't like the explanation, you can have someone spoon feed you their version.

You can be less hostile to people who are trying to explain to you in good faith.

Are you friggin dense? Go back and read my OP and tell me where I didn't say the labels don't mean anything without a foundation in the four basic dichotomies, the model functions, or the IMs. Your lackey just repeated what I wrote but tried to lecture me as if I hadn't written that at all.

And the [ ] also believes that link answers the questions, to show you what he knows.

[mu4]

Are you friggin dense? Go back and read my OP and tell me where I didn't say the labels don't mean anything without a foundation in the four basic dichotomies, the model functions, or the IMs. Your lackey just repeated what I wrote but tried to lecture me as if I hadn't written that at all.

And the [ ] also believes that link answers the questions, to show you what he knows.

You can be less hostile to people who are trying to explain to you in good faith.

[ae1905]

The way I interpret implicit is derived from. So N is implicit because it is derived from immediate sensory perceptions--ie, N operates on S perceptions. S is largely explicit but can be implicit when the perceptions are of relations between people and things (Si); that is, the Si perceptions of these relations are derived from the immediate sensory perceptions of those things. T operates on S perceptions, F feelings, N intuitions, and T concepts and is therefore implicit. T, in fact, is at least as far removed from reality as N, and often farther. F also operates on S perceptions, T concepts, N intuitions, and F feelings, but it can also generate its own feelings sui generis. So F is closer to reality than T, even though feelings outside of us are not usually directly observable in the same way objects outside of us are. So F is both explicit and implicit.

So Se is the most explicit aspect of reality. N, T, Si, and those aspects of F that are derivative are all implicit.

[anndelise]

Yes, it is. Si is internal, or implicit, in the sense you do not have access to someone else's Si by simply perceiving an external object--ie, his Si is not "directly sensible". Si depends on the user's experience which is not accessible to others, unless he uses T abstract elements to communicate it.

The Aspect "Internal" is not the same thing as the Aspect "The Involvement". What you are describing above is "The Involvement", not "Internal".

The Involvement aspect involves information which is directly sensible to the individual. Iow we must use our own senses in order to process "S" type of information. You cannot clearly and successfully define blue by using words alone. To get the other person to understand what you mean by blue, you would have to show them something that is blue. This is what is meant by "explicit" in terms of S info. You can see the blue, and you can show me the color blue so that I can see it to.

Si involves information that requires using one's senses to perceive a field in flux. A simple example was scratchy. If you place your hand on a rough surface, but you don't move your hand, then all you can really feel is "rough". That would be the static quality of the object itself, Se. To feel "scratchy", you actually have to move your hand along the surface, at which point the field between your hand and the object is in flux. You feel nonrough spots followed by rough spots by nonrough by rough. A less simple example but still simple is that car crash. Watching two moving objects, and seeing the space between them change and then seeing the car sides connect and watching as the metals of each begin to bend and break, glass shattering, as each car interacts with and changes the other car.

Yes, it requires personal Involvement to see this happening, you have to use your own eyes, you can't use mine.
But it is explicit in that we can both see it happening. The crash isn't being implied, we can actually see it, witness it, experience it. I would say "look, those cars are about to crash" and we could both use our senses to see the fields changing and the crash occuring and the cars physically modifying each other. Notice here that I used words to describe the scenario. The words are not the S info. I am trying to create an image in your mind of us standing side by side, watching two cars crashing. It is an analogy, a metaphor, I am using abstract words to imply a meaning.
(I didn't mean to sound patronizing there, sorry.)

No, because you have no idea if his idea of scratchy is the same as yours unless he explicitly tells you "using T abstract elements".

Which is why I would pick something that I feel is scratchy and then ask him to run his hand across it so that he could use his senses to feel what I meant by the word. The word scratchy is T'd info. But the actual experience is S, not T. Having him feel what I'm labeling as scratchy is one way of defining what I mean when I'm using the abstract term. It doesnt matter if he agrees that it is scratchy or not. What matters is that he can draw from his sensory experiences of what "scratchy" might mean. From there we can talk about it abstractly or go on to experience other sensations.

Blue depends on each person's experience of the color blue, just as sad depends on each user's experience of sad. No difference between the two insofar as cognition goes.

Blue and Sad both require "The Involvement" to understand what is being referred to.
If you want someone to understand what you mean by blue, you show them the color so they can see it themselves.
If you want someone to understand what you mean by sad, you can try putting yourself into the body posture of sadness...thereby trying to imply a certain affect by triggering their mirror neurons, and hoping it worked well enough that they can now understand what you mean. Or you can try reminding them of times when something might have created an affect similar to your sad. Again, you're having to take a round-a-bout way to get them to understand what you mean when you say sad.

Blue could be defined explicitely by showing the color and using their senses. But sad requires a roundabout way to define it. You can't really be sure that they understand your use of "sad", but hope that it's close enough so that the conver can continue. Hence it is drawing on implicit information.

Same things can be said for thoughts. What we think of one concept depends on what we learned in the past. Two people may have very different ideas about the same concept, and so on.

Right. So T depends on the person and is implicit like F or N--ie, they are not "directly sensible", they depend on interpretation, like F and N do.
All abstract information requires interpretation, yes.
All meaning requires having interpreted something, yes.
But not all Aspects of Reality are implicit.
And, the Aspect "Internal" is not the same thing as the Aspect "Abstract".

If I use the word dophoconile. What do I mean? How would you determine what I am talking about? Well, you could try using context. But if I still keep using words that you don't know what they are supposed to mean, then you won't understand me. You could spend time parsing out the words I'm using, and then try to see how the explicitely relate to each other. A dophocoline is like a hedramayo but drandigynes to the east. From that get that i'm talking about an object that is like another object but verbs differently to the east. Verbs differently implies movement or orientation in space (east). So a dophocoline is something that can orients in space to the east but the hedramayo doesn't. Basically, when having to get implicit info, you have to look for clues about it.

But if I explicitly defined a dophocoline as a plant that is like a sunflower but faces to the east. As long as you know what a sunflower is (i can show you one, or show a picture of one to make it more explicit to you if you didn't), and as long as you know what it means for a flower to "face" towards something, then my definition has been well enough defined for you to follow along as i talk about it.

Basically, we can use S info to help make things more clear to the other person, or ourselves.
And we can use T info. T is abstract, and thus uses symbols. Those symbols, however, have to go through a definition process so that everyone is at least somewhat on the same page. Think of when learning a new language. You have to learn what the words (symbols) mean before you can understand and use them. The better defined it is for you, the easier time you will have in using them.

Socionics has a problem with not having well-defined terms. And this conversation in this thread is an example of what happens when the words being used and/or the concepts being referred to aren't well-defined. However, they very clearly defined how the concepts relate to each other. Which is apart of why it's called a Ti theory.

My point is that T abstract elements can be very complex, so much so that most people cannot understand them even when they are explained. Meanwhile, most emotional states are common to all humans and are readily expressed and understood. So T elements are not necessarily easier to communicate than F. They are not always "directly sensible". In fact, T concepts can be just as fuzzy as F, if not more, since T concepts are often far more abstract and far removed from perceptions and experience than F is. So, if anything, F is easier to understand than T. F is more "directly sensible" than many T concepts.

The info elements and the Aspects that create them are simple.
A person requires all elements in order to function in this world. No person can process one single element all on its own. Also, how a person uses each element is very complex. Plus it's influenced by their genetics and experiences.

If Affect info was so readily understood, then there would be no misinterpretations about a person's feelings, motives, likes/dislikes, etc, right? Affect is very complex. Think of all the chemicals and brain parts involved in processing information of affect. That gives a general feeling of something, but then that feeling has to be interpreted...given meaning. What meaning it is given is individualistic. What makes you sad might not make me sad, maybe it would make me happy. And what about when you are attracted to parts of a person, her mind, her figure, oolala, but you are repulsed by her voice and her nasal drip. Do you really think your feelings towards her would be simplistic now? What about people who crave a drug but are trying to quit. The guilt, the shame, the need, the desire, etc etc. Emotions and Affect are very complicated creatures. And all of that isn't easy to convey to someone else who is deaf to the girls voice or who has never been addicted to anything. The drug addict might be trying to explain what he feels like while his listener is saying how she totally understands him cuz she craves cookies during her special time of month. Do you really think she understands what the drug addict is describing? So, no, Affect is not commonlly understood nor easily describable/expressed.

You're right, T is not directly sensible through the senses. But abstract info must be well defined for communications to succeed. And the drug addict and the girl cannot talk about their feelings/addictions without abstracting and labeling their experiences. They must T it all in order to communicate it. Which necessarily means that much of the experience is untransmitable.

"Explicit" means "directly sensible". What is directly sensible about abstract concepts like justice or democracy or higher dimesions? Affects, otoh, can be directly felt in ourselves and observed in others. If you see a person crying, how is that less "directly sensible" than "democracy"?

We can define what we mean when we say justice.
We can define what we mean when we say democracy.
Higher dimensions is conceptual yes, and much harder to define, requiring one to draw from implicit info, too.
Go to a dictionary for examples on how we have to define as clearly as we can (make as explicit as we can) the meaning of a word/symbol being used. This whole thread is about us trying to clearly define what we mean when we say "internal" "external" "the involvement" "abstract" etc.

As for the Affect. Yes, you can see a person crying. But you have to look for clues to figure out how they are actually feeling. Tears mean nothing. People tear up when sad, when feeling joyous, when angry, when they have a speck of dust in their eye, etc. You can't just look at a person, see they have tears in their eyes, and assume you know how they are feeling...well, you can, but your assumption could easily be totally wrong. Also, Affect is more than just "crying" or "sad", those are lacking the context. What is triggering the sadness? The crying? If you want to truly understand the Affect, you have to attend to that info as well. Which means...asking them, or looking for more implicit info. So no, Affect is not directly sensible, Affect is far from explicit.

But "democracy" can be defined for your listener.
A person saying they are sad doesn't really tell you what Affect is happening. They can tell you that they are sad because they came across an item that belonged to a lost loved one, and they are feeling the loss. But don't think that words are the same thing as the feeling. The words require them to pull away from the experience of the Affect so they can look at the feeling (which only they can experience), and try to find words to label it so that they can communicate it to you. Iow, they are having to T the info for you.

Point taken. I was in a rush and wrote this w/o thinking. How do you interpret the aristocratic-democratic dichotomy in terms of internal-external? What do external-external and internal-internal have in common that can be called "aristocratic"? How does this quality manifest in cognition and behavior?

I have some work to get to, this evening I will try to answer this. But it probably won't be a common view of that dichotomy. The Aspects i have spent a lot of time on, so they are easier for me to talk about. Not so much this particular dichotomy.

[ae1905]

The way I interpret implicit is derived from. So N is implicit because it is derived from immediate sensory perceptions--ie, N operates on S perceptions. S is largely explicit but can be implicit when the perceptions are of relations between people and things (Si); that is, the Si perceptions of these relations are derived from the immediate sensory perceptions of those things. T operates on S perceptions, F feelings, N intuitions, and T concepts and is therefore implicit. T, in fact, is at least as far removed from reality as N, and often farther. F also operates on S perceptions, T concepts, N intuitions, and F feelings, but it can also generate its own feelings sui generis. So F is closer to reality than T, even though feelings outside of us are not usually directly observable in the same way objects outside of us are. So F is both explicit and implicit.

So Se is the most explicit aspect of reality. N, T, Si, and those aspects of F that are derivative are all implicit.

What this means is that SPs are the most explicit group, the group whose cognition is closest to reality. NTs and NFs who use Se would come next, followed by the SJs and the NTs and NFs who use Si, who are the most implicit. It's no coincidence LIIs and EIIs are, respectively, the most theoretical and idealistic types. They are farthest removed from reality.

[ae1905]

So the NT dichotomy is just a mathematical result of combining the four basic dichotomies in pairs. The idea of implicit and explicit aspects of reality is a separate theoretical exercise done, perhaps, to explain this dichotomy, but without success. NT is just a mathematical artefact. It doesn't mean anything. And neither, I suspect, do most, if any, of the other 10 Reinin dichotomies.

[ae1905]

Si involves information that requires using one's senses to perceive a field in flux. A less simple example but still simple is that car crash. Watching two moving objects, and seeing the space between them change and then seeing the car sides connect and watching as the metals of each begin to bend and break, glass shattering, as each car interacts with and changes the other car.

The car collision is an example of Se, not Si. Si is concerned with the relations between objects and the self, not with the relations between objects that have no relation to the self. The only way that example could illustrate Si is if the focus is on the aspects of perception that affect the observer--eg, someone he knows is in the crash. But the collision itself is a plain Se perception. Two cars collide. That's it. So Si is still implicit since the observer's subjective reactions to the crash (if they even exist) are not "directly sensible", even if the crash is.

Which is why I would pick something that I feel is scratchy and then ask him to run his hand across it so that he could use his senses to feel what I meant by the word. The word scratchy is T'd info. But the actual experience is S, not T. Having him feel what I'm labeling as scratchy is one way of defining what I mean when I'm using the abstract term. It doesnt matter if he agrees that it is scratchy or not. What matters is that he can draw from his sensory experiences of what "scratchy" might mean. From there we can talk about it abstractly or go on to experience other sensations.

Unless scratchy affects us in a way apart from being a simple sensation, it is Se and is explicit. Also, I can induce a F reaction like anger by insulting someone. Does that by itself make it explicit? No.

Blue could be defined explicitely by showing the color and using their senses. But sad requires a roundabout way to define it. You can't really be sure that they understand your use of "sad", but hope that it's close enough so that the conver can continue. Hence it is drawing on implicit information.

I said blue was not the best comparison because it is a quality that can be directly perceived--ie, it is Se. So I posited the example of "democracy", a T concept. But to stay on blue for a moment, I can ask the person to think of a time when something terrible happened to him. Or I can do something horrible to him to induce the feeling of sadness just as I can show him the color blue. The action could be something explicit like cutting off his hand. Nothing implicit there.

Right. So T depends on the person and is implicit like F or N--ie, they are not "directly sensible", they depend on interpretation, like F and N do.
All abstract information requires interpretation, yes.
All meaning requires having interpreted something, yes.
But not all Aspects of Reality are implicit.
And, the Aspect "Internal" is not the same thing as the Aspect "Abstract".

Not all implicit aspects are abstract, but all abstractions are implicit.

But if I explicitly defined a dophocoline as a plant that is like a sunflower but faces to the east. As long as you know what a sunflower is (i can show you one, or show a picture of one to make it more explicit to you if you didn't), and as long as you know what it means for a flower to "face" towards something, then my definition has been well enough defined for you to follow along as i talk about it.

Basically, we can use S info to help make things more clear to the other person, or ourselves.
And we can use T info. T is abstract, and thus uses symbols. Those symbols, however, have to go through a definition process so that everyone is at least somewhat on the same page. Think of when learning a new language. You have to learn what the words (symbols) mean before you can understand and use them. The better defined it is for you, the easier time you will have in using them.

I can describe a N perception in the same way. Does that make the N perception explicit? F has its own language using words but also music and art. That can be learned, too. But more importantly, most people don't need formal training to understand F. They know it instinctively. T, not so much.

If Affect info was so readily understood, then there would be no misinterpretations about a person's feelings, motives, likes/dislikes, etc, right? Affect is very complex. Think of all the chemicals and brain parts involved in processing information of affect. That gives a general feeling of something, but then that feeling has to be interpreted...given meaning. What meaning it is given is individualistic. What makes you sad might not make me sad, maybe it would make me happy. And what about when you are attracted to parts of a person, her mind, her figure, oolala, but you are repulsed by her voice and her nasal drip. Do you really think your feelings towards her would be simplistic now? What about people who crave a drug but are trying to quit. The guilt, the shame, the need, the desire, etc etc. Emotions and Affect are very complicated creatures. And all of that isn't easy to convey to someone else who is deaf to the girls voice or who has never been addicted to anything. The drug addict might be trying to explain what he feels like while his listener is saying how she totally understands him cuz she craves cookies during her special time of month. Do you really think she understands what the drug addict is describing? So, no, Affect is not commonlly understood nor easily describable/expressed.

Neither are T concepts. That's why we go to school for years. But F and T can be described by words. And F can also be described in other ways.

You're right, T is not directly sensible through the senses. But abstract info must be well defined for communications to succeed. And the drug addict and the girl cannot talk about their feelings/addictions without abstracting and labeling their experiences. They must T it all in order to communicate it. Which necessarily means that much of the experience is untransmitable.

And the girl and the addict have to use T language, too, to discuss the General Theory of Relativity. So why is F implicit in socionics while T is explicit?

And to the last sentence, a theory may have many subtleties, implications, and connections that are not readily explicated or even understood by its creator, much less its students. Reality, like our emotions, is complex and not easily described, even by T.

We can define what we mean when we say justice.
We can define what we mean when we say democracy.
Higher dimensions is conceptual yes, and much harder to define, requiring one to draw from implicit info, too.
Go to a dictionary for examples on how we have to define as clearly as we can (make as explicit as we can) the meaning of a word/symbol being used. This whole thread is about us trying to clearly define what we mean when we say "internal" "external" "the involvement" "abstract" etc.

As for the Affect. Yes, you can see a person crying. But you have to look for clues to figure out how they are actually feeling. ...

You can define "sad", too. It's in the dictionary. And you can skip the dictionary and just ask people to think of sad experiences.

A person saying they are sad doesn't really tell you what Affect is happening. They can tell you that they are sad because they came across an item that belonged to a lost loved one, and they are feeling the loss. But don't think that words are the same thing as the feeling. The words require them to pull away from the experience of the Affect so they can look at the feeling (which only they can experience), and try to find words to label it so that they can communicate it to you. Iow, they are having to T the info for you.

If a person has a concept, he has to find the words to describe it. How does this make T more explicit than F?

I have some work to get to, this evening I will try to answer this. But it probably won't be a common view of that dichotomy. The Aspects i have spent a lot of time on, so they are easier for me to talk about. Not so much this particular dichotomy.

K

[anndelise]

@ae1905 i can tell by your answer that
A) you're not interested in understanding the Aspects of Reality that make up the Socionics Elements, and
B) that you are pretty set on trying to fit the Aspects into subjective/objective and/or Jung's introversion/extroversion.
Others have come in trying to do the same thing. It didn't work for them, and regularly led to major misunderstandings between them and other forum members who DO understand the Aspects. I expect no difference here.

You've begun answering and agreeing with yourself, building up on your own theory, and being unresponsive to the efforts of others. As such, there doesn't really seem to be a reason for our part of the conver to continue.

(Fwiw, I don't blame you for being critical of socionics.)

[Pookie]

You gotta empty your cup to taste someone else's tea.

[ae1905]

@ae1905 i can tell by your answer that
A) you're not interested in understanding the Aspects of Reality that make up the Socionics Elements, and
B) that you are pretty set on trying to fit the Aspects into subjective/objective and/or Jung's introversion/extroversion.
Others have come in trying to do the same thing. It didn't work for them, and regularly led to major misunderstandings between them and other forum members who DO understand the Aspects. I expect no difference here.

You've begun answering and agreeing with yourself, building up on your own theory, and being unresponsive to the efforts of others. As such, there doesn't really seem to be a reason for our part of the conver to continue.

(Fwiw, I don't blame you for being critical of socionics.)

A. I am interested or I wouldn't be here. But you haven't made a convincing case. I've criticized your points and you've decided not to answer the criticisms. I don't blame you. Implicit is a fuzzy idea. You even admitted this. Hell, you even admitted T is implicit! So I changed your mind!

B. Again, I've criticized your explanations and you haven't been able to answer my criticisms.

Why can't I build my own theory? Are you part of the thought police?! Implicit-explicit doesn't work, not the way you describe it and you admit it. And I haven't seen an explanation for any of the other Reinin dichotomies that makes sense, either. So obviously there's a need to build a theory because there is no theory, just a bunch of ad hoc labels.

[ae1905]

You gotta empty your cup to taste someone else's tea.

Yeah? What if their cup is empty?

[anndelise]

Hell, you even admitted T is implicit! So I changed your mind!

If that's what you interpreted of what i wrote, then we have a communication break down anyways.
That's ok, it happens.

Why can't I build my own theory? Are you part of the thought police?!

I'm not against you building your own theory. This forum has a number of bastardizations of socionics.
Just so long as you make it clear that it's Your theory, and not Socionics'.

Implicit-explicit doesn't work, not the way you describe it and you admit it. And I haven't seen an explanation for any of the other Reinin dichotomies that makes sense, either. So obviously there's a need to build a theory because there is no theory.

Implicit-explicit does work, but not if you use those terms to mean what they don't mean, which you keep insisting on doing.
And they aren't reinin, nor are they Jung, they are the "Aspects of Reality".
The Aspects combine to make up the Elements. Reinin is something mathematically done from the elements and quadras. Reinin is an NTs theory on top of another NTs (Aushras)theory. With very little grounding. But that's to be expected from double abstract types.

Feel free to form your own theory, as I said, I don't blame you for being critical of socionics. But I do ask that you take responsibility for your own creation by calling it yours, and not Socionics'.

[anndelise]

Just because I'm dumb enough to make one last ditch effort towards helping you understand part of where you are erring...

You think two cars on a collision course, getting closer and closer together, finally running into each other and the process of them crushing each other up from the impact is "a thing at rest".
I see it as a dynamic field that changes as each car moves closer to the other, and a dynamic interaction (also a dynamic field) as each car crushes the other. In summary, i see it as "things at motion"

You see two cars crashing into each other, destroying each other as a single object without a subject. That you can talk about the impact of one of the cars without referring to the other car at all.
I am having difficulty figuring out how a person can describe a crash between two cars by only describing one car without referencing the other car at all.

A field requires an object and a subject. The subject did something to the object. I can see a dog chasing a cat, and talk about the dog chasing the cat, without referencing myself in the story beyond "i saw..." But the dog chasing the cat is happening regardless of my looking out my window, in fact, i'm willing to bet the dog was chasing the cat before I even looked, since the only reason I looked was because I heard hissing yowling barking and whimpering and I wanted to see what was going on.

Now, in some fields, the subject or object CAN be me. Such as when the f'n dog is chasing ME down the road.
But socionics' "fields" don't require the observer in order for it to be a field. It just requires a minimum of two objects/concepts tied together in some way.

If you can't grasp the difference between "Dynamic S" vs "Static S", or between a "single body" vs "the interplay/relationship between two bodies", then you'll never understand socionics.

[Pookie]

Yeah? What if their cup is empty?

Then theyre smart enough to listen to another person when they ask a question. Difficult, I know.

[The Foundation]

A. I am interested or I wouldn't be here. But you haven't made a convincing case. I've criticized your points and you've decided not to answer the criticisms. I don't blame you. Implicit is a fuzzy idea. You even admitted this. Hell, you even admitted T is implicit! So I changed your mind!

B. Again, I've criticized your explanations and you haven't been able to answer my criticisms.

Why can't I build my own theory? Are you part of the thought police?! Implicit-explicit doesn't work, not the way you describe it and you admit it. And I haven't seen an explanation for any of the other Reinin dichotomies that makes sense, either. So obviously there's a need to build a theory because there is no theory, just a bunch of ad hoc labels.

Perhaps it would be best to see Implicit/Explicit (or Internal/External) through the Irrational Elements, then you might be able to see what the theory is trying to elucidate.

Wall O' Text:

The Sensing IM Elements focus on the external qualities of objects (that which is readily observed), but this does not necessarily mean that they need be objective. A cube sitting in the middle of a room can be seen as an object with 6 faces, 12 edges and 8 corners, thus we observe the external traits of objects in an almost indisputable manner. This would be in the domain of . However, if you were to touch the cube and feel that it is warm or cold, or notice that its color resonates with a specific attitude (an overpowering red, a dull gray), you would still be noticing the external qualities while at the same time introducing the element of subjectivity. This falls more in line with , which can be seen as taking external qualities of objects and interpreting them based on their affect on you or on an area. Sure, you can read the temperature of the cube to be a specific number, but you cannot quantify the subjective feeling of "warm" or "cold" as felt by a person who is touching the cube; some might say it to be mildly warm while others might suggest that it is scalding, in much the same way as you cannot actually produce an empirical system that designates the attitude of a specific color (a dull gray, for instance) that actually carries the specific feeling of dullness. Even though 's perceptions are subjective in origin, they are still derived from the external qualities of objects, and are simply noticing how those qualities affect an observer.

The Intuitive IM Elements, in contrast, focus on that which cannot be readily observed in an object, and thus orient themselves in the "internal" realm of objects (that which is inherent yet not always expressed). Even though these elements focus on that which cannot readily be observed through external manifestations, it does not necessarily mean that they must be subjective. If we take the IM element, for example, we notice that it examines the static potential of objects (also called the "essence") and the inherent ability of objects (and people). Thus, we can see how perception through can actually be objective, in the sense that the observation of potential, no matter how wild or far-fetched, is still something that can be reasonably observed by anyone in an objective fashion. An perspective, then, might be looking at a cube, and saying "this cube could be chiseled into a chair that I can sit in", or "this cube could be sold to some idiot for an absurd amount of money as art". While not everyone would immediately come to these conclusions, they are still objective. You can chisel a cube into chair, and you can sell the cube as art for an absurd amount of money; these are two of an infinite amount of internal characteristics of the cube (all of which are objective) that are almost indisputable, and even if the readings of these internal characteristics are physically impossible, they have no subjective element to make these observations dependent on the observer. Anyone can say "this cube can be chiseled into a chair" and actually realize the potential of this cube to become a chair under the right circumstances and actions. This potential has the same meaning to everyone. , however, produces the subjective side of internal characteristics. Feelings are produced by objects that point toward specific actions occurring, without any regard for whether everyone can experience the same feelings. Much like how in the previous paragraph gives the user a subjective sense of external information, gives the user a subjective sense of internal information, "feelings" of potential. This is partially why is so heavily linked with time, because time is this abstract, flowing construct that can be felt but not described the same way depending on who you ask. In reality, I find that deals more with feeling of importance or pointlessness, feelings of worth embedded in potential, or feelings of how realistic something seems. "We could sell this cube as art to some fool for sums of money, but it doesn't (seem/feel) like something that is feasible, considering that we would have to go through the process of finding such a person who is both foolish and rich, which would be an arduous task."

The Rational Elements, however, are much more complicated to deal with in this scenario, considering that they are organizations of perceptions. The reason why Logic is considered external and Ethics is considered internal is due to the nature of judgement. If you are judging an object with a Logical element, you are focused on the traits of an object that are directly discernible (the main points of an argument, or what something directly states) and that are established as certain by the object (an object may state that 1 + 1 = 3, in which case a Logical Element might step in and say "No, 1 unit + 1 unit = 2 units", thus revising the external qualities of the argument as they appear before you). If you are judging an object with an Ethical element, however, you are focused on the uncertainties established by an object that are not apparently discernible, adding ambiguity. There is no logical answer to a question such as "Why is killing people bad" as "bad-ness" is a quality that is inherent (or internal) of an object (in this case killing, or murder), it is subjective and internal at the same time.

Thus, we find that:

- External, Subjective (Due to the fact that reasoning directed at the certainties of objects is subjectively analyzed for understanding and for "sense-making")

- External, Objective (Due to the fact that reasoning directed at the certainties of objects are analyses devoted to making sure information presented lines up with the objective reasoning of reality. If a theory says a ball doesn't bounce, the type would attempt to reason out how they have come to this conclusion and then would put forth their critique and own reasoning while a type would simply state that balls already do bounce in the world around us (or test it themselves by bouncing a ball), and state that the theory is wrong because it doesn't line up with reality)

- Internal, Subjective (Due to the fact that reasoning directed at the uncertainties of objects is subjectively analyzed for an ethical reaction produced by the user and for "judging" (morally evaluating))

- Internal, Objective (Due to the fact that reasoning directed at the uncertainties of objects are analyses devoted to making sure information presented lines up with the subjective reasoning of reality. If a person states that government is bad, the type would attempt to reason out how the other person has reached the moral conclusion that government is bad and then would put forth their own critique and own ethical reaction while a type would simply look at how government directly affects people for better or for worse to base an ethical reaction or judgement. "Government protects people from harm, thus it is good", "Government encroaches on the freedoms of people, thus it is bad". It doesn't seem objective in that it still uses subjective terms such as good or bad but it is still deriving good or bad from a common morality that many share. "Protecting people is considered a good thing, and Government protects people; therefore the Government protecting people is a good thing".)

[strangeling]

...