Originally Posted by
Jonathan
Okay, I agree that calling productivity Te, or health Se, and so forth is wrong. But how can say that the formulation with internal/external etc. is the only way to to accurately describe information elements? Why is it any better than calling Ti "external rational statics," Te "external rational dynamics," Ni "internal irrational dynamics" and so forth? Mathematically, that scheme is just as good.
Or why not call Ti "external rationality of fields," Te "external rationality of objects," Ni "internal irrationality of fields" and so forth? That works too.
Or why not define S&F as "involved" and N&T as "abstract" and call Ti "abstract statics of fields," Te "abstract dynamics of objects," Fe "involved dynamics of objects?"
Or the other two combinations of what I've already mentioned? So far we have six different schemes, all of which uniquely name each IM element.
Also, if people don't know what Ti is, do they know what external, statics, and fields are? If they don't, why not call Ti "Ti"?
I'm not saying that thinking about these dichotomies...statics vs. dynamics, and so forth, has no explanatory value. I'm just maintaining that these are merely coordinates and, although they have become a sort of convention in Socionics, they're no better than other equivalent approaches, such as the other 5 schemes I've shown here.