Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: The picture needs some definition

  1. #1
    ouronis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    TIM
    &*self
    Posts
    867
    Mentioned
    43 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default The picture needs some definition

    Ok, in Filatova's book, one of the ways she describes introverted and extraverted is that introverted focuses on the person's assessment of an object or event and extraverted focuses on the object itself.

    I'm not even sure how you could think about something without assessing it. Does this mean that extraverts don't think?

    Then how does Te work?

    How does anything get extracted from the object, even material use, if no thinking is allowed?

    I'm confused.

  2. #2
    Haikus Beautiful sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    EII land
    TIM
    EII INFj
    Posts
    22,740
    Mentioned
    531 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    So if the object is a Person, Te works by noticing working qualities of that object. Imagine a person who is good with numbers, then Te would look at that person as maximizing their skill set, so referring them to be an accountant..."you should" The should part is a judgement on the positioning "become an accountant" as to view how well an object performs and to judge the functions for which it was made.


    *I love Te* They can be a pain in my back end (sometimes literally lol-not going there)

  3. #3
    ouronis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    TIM
    &*self
    Posts
    867
    Mentioned
    43 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Ok
    1)Te notices qualities of an object
    a)Te notices object
    b)Te looks at that person as maximizing their skill set(I think you mean "what that person is capable of or needs to be capable of in order to fit into certain role")

    Now here I get confused. You are saying that Te makes a judgement on whether the person should be an accountant or not, but at the same time uses this to judge the position of accountant in itself?

    How exactly is this not an assessment? I'm still missing something.

  4. #4
    Rhaegar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    55
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    While I have a different understanding of the way I look at introversion/extraversion, I'll take a crack at explaining what I think Filatova is trying to get across here.

    The difference between the object and your personal assessment of the object is how she defines this difference. It does not relate to actively thinking at all. Thinking comes after the step she is describing here.

    What she is saying is that when an extrovert comes in contact with anything, they notice that thing for what it is, the qualities it actually has. This is the image of the thing in their mind, the perception itself is not interrupted by the influence of any personal factors, at least not in the initial moment it is encountered.

    Introverts, on the other hand, come into contact with objects differently. The object itself is not as important as the mental response generated by the object. The introvert therefore associates that initial mental response as part of the object they see, thereby immediately removing the pure object from their vision and replacing it with the tainted and personal version they experience it as. Filatova talks about this at the start of all her introvert type descriptions. She states that external things and conditions serve merely as a stimulus for an introvert to be moved into some other type of mental imagery or situation. The object itself is not as important as the subjective response the mind creates in the presence of the object. For the extrovert the object is the more important factor. It is a bit analogous to the definition difference between physiology and pathophysiology. In physiology we see body mechanisms working as intended and objectively, like extroverts. In pathophysiology we examine the functioning of the body in the presence of disease. This is sort of like how the introvert perceives. Think of the introverts perception as the disease, it affects the mechanisms of the object by its very presence. The types of effects differ by type of course, but ultimately this is how I perceive the difference. Hope it helps.

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

    Default

    it's about certainties and causal determinations that are so simple and evident that they require no active thought to be distilled from experience. this is also made evident by how Te is Focal when Accepting, i.e. before any of the active effort of Creating is employed.

    any time an epistemic challenge enters the picture you are instead dealing with Ti, or at least not with Te in its purest and most exemplary form. this is when it requires creating, i.e. effort, to reach a state of certainty and singularity of answer. in the Accepting stage, before effort is made, Ti is underdetermined in the sense of being hypothetical, merely suggested or settled on by choice rather than the thorough elimination of alternatives.

  6. #6
    ouronis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    TIM
    &*self
    Posts
    867
    Mentioned
    43 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rhaegar View Post
    While I have a different understanding of the way I look at introversion/extraversion, I'll take a crack at explaining what I think Filatova is trying to get across here.

    The difference between the object and your personal assessment of the object is how she defines this difference. It does not relate to actively thinking at all. Thinking comes after the step she is describing here.

    What she is saying is that when an extrovert comes in contact with anything, they notice that thing for what it is, the qualities it actually has. This is the image of the thing in their mind, the perception itself is not interrupted by the influence of any personal factors, at least not in the initial moment it is encountered.

    Introverts, on the other hand, come into contact with objects differently. The object itself is not as important as the mental response generated by the object. The introvert therefore associates that initial mental response as part of the object they see, thereby immediately removing the pure object from their vision and replacing it with the tainted and personal version they experience it as. Filatova talks about this at the start of all her introvert type descriptions. She states that external things and conditions serve merely as a stimulus for an introvert to be moved into some other type of mental imagery or situation. The object itself is not as important as the subjective response the mind creates in the presence of the object. For the extrovert the object is the more important factor. It is a bit analogous to the definition difference between physiology and pathophysiology. In physiology we see body mechanisms working as intended and objectively, like extroverts. In pathophysiology we examine the functioning of the body in the presence of disease. This is sort of like how the introvert perceives. Think of the introverts perception as the disease, it affects the mechanisms of the object by its very presence. The types of effects differ by type of course, but ultimately this is how I perceive the difference. Hope it helps.
    Now there must be some sort of explanation of the difference between a real object, the impression of an object, and how introverts are not delusional if they act on their perception. If an introvert's perspective is legitimate, yet always the object, but displaced, either the value of the introvert is in its ability to self-correct via an extraverted function, and in its circularity, extract something from the object--which will remain forever unable to be confirmed or denied, or the extravert is just an introvert lite, and both are on their rockers and not able to see an object in its entirety(which is to be expected, given finiteness and all that), or maybe it's both.

    @lecter

    Brings in the problem of "I can do what you do, but better" when trying to type. And then to explain differences you have recourse to things like "well, I have less clutter, so I'm faster, more adept," and potentially you get both working to erase the other. One will prioritize the other more, but when acting as an individual, adapting requires bringing in these two separate aspects and getting used to them. Less certain about this.. so grain of salt. This could be more of what you'd actually just expect inter- and intrapersonally between lead and ignoring.

  7. #7
    Rhaegar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    55
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ouronis View Post
    Now there must be some sort of explanation of the difference between a real object, the impression of an object, and how introverts are not delusional if they act on their perception. If an introvert's perspective is legitimate, yet always the object, but displaced, either the value of the introvert is in its ability to self-correct via an extraverted function, and in its circularity, extract something from the object--which will remain forever unable to be confirmed or denied, or the extravert is just an introvert lite, and both are on their rockers and not able to see an object in its entirety(which is to be expected, given finiteness and all that), or maybe it's both.
    Keep in mind the process I described is only the initial point of contact with the object. Other functions and mental processes do apply and cleanse and reshape the image surely. Otherwise all introverts would be quacks and extroverts practical. This process only described the introverted or extroverted lead function's initial interaction with the object, their is a longer chain of information metabolism than that. This leads to a multi-faceted approach to any object, whether extrovert or introvert.

  8. #8
    xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,469
    Mentioned
    53 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    An object is as "authentic" a representation of a thing or concept as is possible. It's as far removed from personal idiosyncrasies as possible.

    An object has universal validity in the sense that its content / facts / conclusion is the same regardless of who's experiencing it. An ideal object can't be reinterpreted from a different context or point of view.

    Because humans are naturally subjective creatures locked into personal context, it's not trivial to represent an object, even for an extrovert, beyond a rudimentary and / or "noisy" level.
    It was in the reign of George III that the aforesaid personages lived and quarrelled; good or bad, handsome or ugly, rich or poor, they are all equal now.

  9. #9
    ouronis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    TIM
    &*self
    Posts
    867
    Mentioned
    43 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xerx View Post
    An object is as "authentic" a representation of a thing or concept as is possible. It's as far removed from personal idiosyncrasies as possible.

    An object has universal validity in the sense that its content / facts / conclusion is the same regardless of who's experiencing it. An ideal object can't be reinterpreted from a different context or point of view.

    Because humans are naturally subjective creatures locked into personal context, it's not trivial to represent an object, even for an extrovert, beyond a rudimentary and / or "noisy" level.

    Well this is pretty much my problem, if the distinction is buried under so much shit, who's got a shovel?

    Is the ideal even in play here?

    Ok, and not to side-track you with the above stuff, because this is what I care about more in regards to your post: but how does the stuff you've said look in practice? The abstract structures are easy enough to see and exploit, the tough part is putting some skin on those bones, since in a sense we are both playing into the hands of a never-ending, backwards question-line..

  10. #10
    xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,469
    Mentioned
    53 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ouronis View Post
    Well this is pretty much my problem, if the distinction is buried under so much shit, who's got a shovel?
    Every idea has extension into more basic concepts. These basic concepts, shared by everyone, are built in to our hardware.

    Extroversion is the art of representing the inalienable information which persists regardless of subjective context.
    Last edited by xerx; 12-26-2014 at 10:55 PM.
    It was in the reign of George III that the aforesaid personages lived and quarrelled; good or bad, handsome or ugly, rich or poor, they are all equal now.

  11. #11
    ouronis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    TIM
    &*self
    Posts
    867
    Mentioned
    43 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xerx View Post
    Every idea has extension into more basic concepts. These basic concepts are shared by everyone are built in to our hardware.

    Extroversion is the art of representing the inalienable information which persists regardless of subjective context.
    Intersubjective(n->infinity)

    Yeah. Hmm. I'll give it some more thought.

  12. #12
    xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,469
    Mentioned
    53 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ouronis View Post
    Intersubjective(n->infinity)

    Yeah. Hmm. I'll give it some more thought.
    "Basic concepts" was probably a poor choice of words. Representing a sophisticated object requires much in the way of experience, creativity, perspicacity, and trial and error. It takes ingenuity when a H!tler uses fiery rhetoric to tap into the people's collective unconscious, though that analogy applies equally well for day-to-day use.
    It was in the reign of George III that the aforesaid personages lived and quarrelled; good or bad, handsome or ugly, rich or poor, they are all equal now.

  13. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ouronis View Post
    Ok, in Filatova's book, one of the ways she describes introverted and extraverted is that introverted focuses on the person's assessment of an object or event and extraverted focuses on the object itself.

    I'm not even sure how you could think about something without assessing it. Does this mean that extraverts don't think?

    Then how does Te work?

    How does anything get extracted from the object, even material use, if no thinking is allowed?

    I'm confused.
    basically introverts and extroverts both experience objects, but an introvert will inflate their subjective impression and associate it with the object, while an extrovert will suppress their subjective impression and detach it from the object. the extrovert mindset is attempting to experience the object without being altered by it. the introvert mindset is conflating its feelings with the object and deliberately changing the object to change the corresponding feelings. So the feelings, caused by the relationship, are central for an introvert while the object itself is central for an extrovert.
    Last edited by ConcreteButterfly; 12-27-2014 at 10:40 AM.

Posting Permissions

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