IM element descriptions

[aestrivex]

somebody either explain these ridiculous definitions or point me to some readable article describing this nonsense.


if there are only articles in badly translated russian don't even bother.

[Jonathan]

Oh but they are, if you understand them conceptually. Your definition only defines Fi types within the abstract system; it does not effectively describe the manifestation of the function itself.

Well, mine could just as easily be understood as defining the Fi IM Element as the Fi types....just as internal static fields could be understood as referring to the acc-Fi types as well (which are static types, N- or F-dominant ("internal"), and introverts ("fields")).

But I won't push it too hard because I haven't checked that those particular dichotomies (constructivist...etc.) work for defining all 8 elements. One system that I know absolutely does work for all 8 is Anndelise's system where instead of "internal/external" (N&F/S&T) you substitute "involved/abstract" (S&F/N&T).

That system absolutely does work, and in fact one can make at least a good a case that S is "like" F and N "like" T as one could for N being "like" F and S being "like" T.

But the bigger point is that as this discussion has shown, you have to adjust your understanding of internal/external, etc., so that the conception of the IM elements comes out right, so these things aren't really the primary source. When someone points out that internal/external doesn't seem to work so well here or there, then you have to clarify "well, what I meant by them is..." so that it works out. Which means that it's a sort of synthetic definition, not the primary definition...not the thing one needs to understand what the IM elements are really.

[Exodus]

But the bigger point is that as this discussion has shown, you have to adjust your understanding of internal/external, etc., so that the conception of the IM elements comes out right, so these things aren't really the primary source. When someone points out that internal/external doesn't seem to work so well here or there, then you have to clarify "well, what I meant by them is..." so that it works out. Which means that it's a sort of synthetic definition, not the primary definition...not the thing one needs to understand what the IM elements are really.

Very well put. I don't think our understanding of the basic dichotomies is at the point where it is a viable substitute for more empirical rules. Although it's possible for the empirical recognition part to be completely automatic, this relies on a LOT of typing experience, which I think Gilly is taking for granted.

[Gilly]

Well, mine could just as easily be understood as defining the Fi IM Element as the Fi types....just as internal static fields could be understood as referring to the acc-Fi types as well (which are static types, N- or F-dominant ("internal"), and introverts ("fields")).

Care to explain?

One system that I know absolutely does work for all 8 is Anndelise's system where instead of "internal/external" (N&F/S&T) you substitute "involved/abstract" (S&F/N&T).

That system absolutely does work, and in fact one can make at least a good a case that S is "like" F and N "like" T as one could for N being "like" F and S being "like" T.

I'm not familiar with her system. I'd be interested in an explanation, though.

But the bigger point is that as this discussion has shown, you have to adjust your understanding of internal/external, etc., so that the conception of the IM elements comes out right, so these things aren't really the primary source. When someone points out that internal/external doesn't seem to work so well here or there, then you have to clarify "well, what I meant by them is..." so that it works out. Which means that it's a sort of synthetic definition, not the primary definition...not the thing one needs to understand what the IM elements are really.

I would expect it to seem that way, but really what that is is simply me adjusting semantics according to how a person responds to me. The basic ideas never change, although obviously I still have certain amounts of clarifying to do for myself in some cases; not every piece of reality is as easy to interpret as the next (which I would hope to be obvious).

So yeah, it's not the fundamental concept, but it's the best anyone's been able to do in terms of putting the concepts in words.

[FDG]

I agree with Jhonny

[Jonathan]

Care to explain?

Any dichotomy of types in which there do not exist any types on different sides of the dichotomy which have the same base function can be seen both as a dichotomy of types and one of IM Elements. That's why "static/dynamic" is both a dichotomy of IM Elements and also a Reinin dichotomy of types.

It happens that the three I chose in my example don't meet those criteria when it comes to irrational IM Elements, so it's a flawed example, as I already suggested. However, it still can be used to uniquely define rational IM Elements, such as Fi. That should be obvious since any mathematical pattern that uniquely identifies the base-Fi types can also be interpreted as a pattern that uniquely identifies Fi itself (according to the same logic as above).

I think that as far as explanation goes, what you're probably looking for is what might be viewed as a meta-mathematical interpretation. It's the interpretations that make each of these dichotomies come alive. I don't have one for the constructivist/compliant/etc. model (when applied to IM elements), but I'm sure it could be done.

By the way, in addition to substituting Anndelise's involved/abstract dichotomy instead of internal/external, one can also substitute rational/irrational instead of either of the other two.

For example, you could call Fi "involved rational statics," Ni "abstract irrational dynamics," Ti "abstract rational statics," Se "involved irrational statics"....etc. Or, you could call Fi "involved rationality of fields," Ni "abstract irrationality of fields," Ti "abstract rationality of fields," Se "Involved irrationality of objects" and so forth.

The meta-interpretations for rational/irrational should already be clear to you.

I'm not familiar with her system. I'd be interested in an explanation, though.

There were a number of posts she did on it (and by the way, in calling it hers, I don't mean to imply that she made it up totally. She may have, but I think she had some Russian sources to, if I recall. I believe the meta-interpretation was hers).

Nevertheless, I don't think it's necessary to look up all those posts. If you think about the 3 dichotomies used in the IM Elements "definitions," it's obvious that the internal/external one is an arbitrary grouping of N&F/S&T, and that you could just as easily substitute S&F/N&T. N&T may both be viewed as more abstract, more removed from actual involvement than S&F. Anndelise explains it better, but that's the main idea.

I remember Rick mentioned that Augusta came up with the dynamic/static and object/field part of the definition, and someone else suggested internal/external (which she then adopted), but that the internal/external one has since been viewed as controversial among Socionists...again, since it's an arbitrary grouping that's no better than the S&F/N&T grouping.

I would speculate that internal/external would appeal more to Deltas and Betas, as they will tend to view T as being paired with S, and N with F. However, obviously a number of Alphas like using that dichotomy as well. I hope you can see though that the other one is just as good.

One other little point I'll mention, although this is just based on subjective observations: I've noticed that people who try to rely completely on the internal-statics-etc. thing for their understanding often tend to type people in ways that don't converge well with other people's typings. I think theHotelAmbush's post here also addresses that issue. Perhaps if one had a "rock solid" definition for each of those three dichotomies, then one could type reliably with that method, but then one is no better off than people who view the IM Elements as the fundamental building blocks and are also looking for more rock solid definitions of them.