Results 1 to 27 of 27

Thread: Objects vs Fields

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE
    Posts
    24,507
    Mentioned
    60 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Objects vs. Fields

    Fe, Te, Se, and Ne are aspects of objects. Fi, Ti, Si, and Ni are aspects of fields.

    Object: one or more people, things, etc.
    Field: the relationship between those people, things, etc.

    Fields are not people, things, etc. that are connected. It's the connection itself. Those people, things, etc. are still objects even if they're connected.
    SEE

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

  2. #2
    Exodus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    8,392
    Mentioned
    324 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    What about connections between connections?

  3. #3
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE
    Posts
    24,507
    Mentioned
    60 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    yeah, those too
    SEE

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

  4. #4
    machintruc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    3,252
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    - mechanical interactions
    - non-mechanical interactions
    - logical connections
    - non-logical connections

    + mechanical experience
    + non-mechanical experience
    + logical dependencies
    + non-logical dependencies

    fields are things percieved as relative, compared to one another. i.e. dependent to some subject.

    fields may be perceived either as subjective or objective.

  5. #5
    Exodus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    8,392
    Mentioned
    324 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default


  6. #6
    Angel of Lightning Brilliand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Utah
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    4,235
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Plus-minus elements.

    We're -... logical connections, as opposed to dependencies... I guess that means that when we connect things, the connections go both ways, as opposed to an LSI who won't instantly realize that a German shepherd being a kind of dog means that dogs have something to do with German shepherds?

    Is that what you meant, machintruc?



    LII-Ne

    "Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
    - Blair Houghton

    Johari

  7. #7
    machintruc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    3,252
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brilliand View Post
    Plus-minus elements.

    We're -... logical connections, as opposed to dependencies... I guess that means that when we connect things, the connections go both ways, as opposed to an LSI who won't instantly realize that a German shepherd being a kind of dog means that dogs have something to do with German shepherds?

    Is that what you meant, machintruc?
    No, I meant that LII's perceives correlations as objective, and LSI's as subjective :

    + "German shepherd" is correlated to "dog"
    - "German shepherd" and "dog" are correlated

    see the difference...

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,968
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Joy View Post
    Fe, Te, Se, and Ne are aspects of objects. Fi, Ti, Si, and Ni are aspects of fields.

    Object: one or more people, things, etc.
    Field: the relationship between those people, things, etc.

    Fields are not people, things, etc. that are connected. It's the connection itself. Those people, things, etc. are still objects even if they're connected.
    Perhaps, though, we should be skeptical about the whole distinction rather than so accepting of it? Augusta came to her theory based on noticing intertype relations (at least dual vs. conflict, at first) and based on Jung. Later, it seems, she came up with the objects vs. field thing.

    The reason seems obvious; she wanted to find some more "respectable" understanding than simply calling things "introverted" vs. "extraverted." Hence, without having to appeal to anything that might reek of a sociability distinction, she noticed that introverted functions are less directly connected with the "object" in question and involve "relating" things in a more indirect way.

    Okay, fine.

    But then people take this stuff too far when they think that the "object" IM elements involve no relating of things at all. Clearly, and involve relationships between things too. They have to. And to say "well, if a person is relating things, that's because he/she is using too" misses the point. You can't or without relating things. It's just that these are more direct, more connected with the object in question. But to say that extraverted IM Elements don't relate anything at all is to dumb them down so much that they become meaningless.

  9. #9
    Suomea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    TIM
    ILE-Ti
    Posts
    1,054
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    ...
    Last edited by Suomea; 09-27-2008 at 03:52 PM.
    Suomea

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,968
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Suomea View Post
    Real quick just off the top of my head....

    Te: Information, facts, etc.
    Ti: How information about things/in general relates to one another (i.e. how they create a Matrix)
    No. This is a good example of the fallacy I was just referring to. Xi is not simply Xe with the addition of relations between things.

    If you're oriented towards external information in a Te way and you relate things to each other in the process, it's still Te.

    Think about it. Expat is an example of someone generally thought of as a leading-Te type. Are his posts just a bunch of random facts thrown together without any relations between them? And if not, is he then displaying mainly his 7th function (Ti) in his posts?

    People are taking the idea of objects vs. fields way to literally. The idea that extraverted IM elements involve merely disconnected points with no intelligent connections between them is nonsensical. How could we even talk about Te and Fe as being "rational" IM elements if they were merely random observations of "stuff"? And even Se and Ne must involve connections between things, or they're completely meaningless.

  11. #11
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE
    Posts
    24,507
    Mentioned
    60 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Suomea View Post
    Real quick just off the top of my head....

    Te: Information, facts, etc.
    Ti: How information about things/in general relates to one another (i.e. how they create a Matrix)

    Fe: Feelings, emotions, expression and recognition of external expression of emotions in others etc.
    Fi: How emotions and actions relate to internal feelings and displays of loyalties between people

    Se: External attributes of Objects, Complete Knowledge of the one's environment
    Si: How one's conscious experience of one's environment relates to one's internal experience and enjoyment

    Ne: The potentiality of Objects/Relations
    Ni: How the relation of a person and their potential relates to the flow of how things should be

    This is very make shift and needs a lot of revision but thought I'd throw something up there.
    No, you're leaving out the dynamics vs. statics component.

    Te is actually more more similar to Fe than it is to Ti.
    Fe is actually much more similar to Te than it is to Fi.
    Ne is actually much more similar to Se than it is to Ni.
    Se is actually much more similar to Ne than it is to Si.
    Ti is actually much more similar to Fi than it is to Te.
    Fi is actually much more similar to Ti than it is to Fe.
    Ni is actually much more similar to Si than it is to Ne.
    Si is actually much more similar to Ni than it is to Se.

    And if you want to make comparisons of the differences between information aspects based on the objects/fields component, then the "similar" aspects are:

    Te and Si
    Fe and Ni
    Se and Ti
    Ne and Fi
    SEE

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

  12. #12
    machintruc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    3,252
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think, when focusing on -, you percieve :

    - as close foreground
    - as close background
    - as distant foreground
    - as distant background

    and +, +, + and + as context for such foregrounds and backgrounds.

  13. #13
    Suomea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    TIM
    ILE-Ti
    Posts
    1,054
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    ...
    Last edited by Suomea; 09-27-2008 at 03:51 PM.
    Suomea

  14. #14
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE
    Posts
    24,507
    Mentioned
    60 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan View Post
    Perhaps, though, we should be skeptical about the whole distinction rather than so accepting of it? Augusta came to her theory based on noticing intertype relations (at least dual vs. conflict, at first) and based on Jung. Later, it seems, she came up with the objects vs. field thing.

    The reason seems obvious; she wanted to find some more "respectable" understanding than simply calling things "introverted" vs. "extraverted." Hence, without having to appeal to anything that might reek of a sociability distinction, she noticed that introverted functions are less directly connected with the "object" in question and involve "relating" things in a more indirect way.
    Interesting. Could you please cite a reference on this? I was under the impression that Socionics was born of combining Jung's theory with another theory about information processing.

    Socionics began to make far more sense to me when I began to understand this part of the theory. It was like I went from trying to understand how electricity works by observing the way a house is wired to actually understanding the scientific principles involved.

    But then people take this stuff too far when they think that the "object" IM elements involve no relating of things at all. Clearly, and involve relationships between things too. They have to. And to say "well, if a person is relating things, that's because he/she is using too" misses the point. You can't or without relating things. It's just that these are more direct, more connected with the object in question. But to say that extraverted IM Elements don't relate anything at all is to dumb them down so much that they become meaningless.
    Elements? No. Aspects? Yes.

    The reason I say no for elements is because it is absolutely impossible to use one at a time. This is not some insignificant point.
    SEE

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

  15. #15

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,968
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Joy View Post
    Interesting. Could you please cite a reference on this? I was under the impression that Socionics was born of combining Jung's theory with another theory about information processing.
    Yes, I read that too. But I read somewhere that the reason she was looking at Jung to begin with was that she noticed that certain relationships worked out better than others, and later understand the difference she was seeing as being dual vs. conflict. I'd have to look for the reference. In any case, my only point here is the ideas derived from Jung and that the object/field thing was added later.

    Socionics began to make far more sense to me when I began to understand this part of the theory.
    If it works for you, fine...I don't mean to take that away.

    But do you see how if it's taken to the extreme, it doesn't work? I have no problem with viewing introverted functions as being more indirectly related to the object and therefore more concerned with the "relations" between things. But when people take it too far, then extraverted functions appear to be meaningless. Even if we think of them as information aspects, they really are relating things. How could it be otherwise? Can you come up with an example of, say, Ne that's not relating something to something else? One can't even form any thought at all without relating something to something else. How could one conceive of a "possibility" or "potential" of an object that relates no concepts at all? It's inherently meaningless.

    And sure, if you look at Ne the "information aspect," then you can talk about a possibility or potential of an object that's just out there to be discovered. It still involves a relation. Otherwise it's meaningless. There is no meaning if there is no relation.

  16. #16
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE
    Posts
    24,507
    Mentioned
    60 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan View Post
    Yes, I read that too. But I read somewhere that the reason she was looking at Jung to begin with was that she noticed that certain relationships worked out better than others, and later understand the difference she was seeing as being dual vs. conflict. I'd have to look for the reference. In any case, my only point here is the ideas derived from Jung and that the object/field thing was added later.
    Yeah, when she went beyond studying someone else's theory and Socionics was born.

    If it works for you, fine...I don't mean to take that away.
    You're right, that's pretty much what it comes down to. Whatever works for the person trying to understand the theory.

    But do you see how if it's taken to the extreme, it doesn't work?
    I can certainly see how it doesn't work when used in the wrong context or misunderstood. If that's what you mean by "to the extreme", I agree. I've also observed that these concepts are too abstract for most people who already think they understand information elements to easily relate their understanding to without one on one explanation from someone who already understands it.

    I have no problem with viewing introverted functions as being more indirectly related to the object and therefore more concerned with the "relations" between things. But when people take it too far, then extraverted functions appear to be meaningless. Even if we think of them as information aspects, they really are relating things. How could it be otherwise? Can you come up with an example of, say, Ne that's not relating something to something else? One can't even form any thought at all without relating something to something else. How could one conceive of a "possibility" or "potential" of an object that relates no concepts at all? It's inherently meaningless.

    And sure, if you look at Ne the "information aspect," then you can talk about a possibility or potential of an object that's just out there to be discovered. It still involves a relation. Otherwise it's meaningless. There is no meaning if there is no relation.
    It's like a piece of pie.

    You can't bake just one piece of pie. One piece of pie cannot exist without being (or having been) a part of the pie as a whole, but that doesn't mean you can't separate that one piece and put it on a plate by itself. Even though each of the slices is a piece of the same pie, that doesn't mean that you can't look at each one individually.

    Similarly, each information aspect is a slice of one reality as a whole. They cannot exist without all of the other aspects of that reality, but that doesn't mean you can't look at each one individually.
    SEE

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

  17. #17

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,968
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Joy View Post
    Yeah, when she went beyond studying someone else's theory and Socionics was born.
    Well, my other point there is that the intertype relationships and Model A do not depend on the object/field/internal/external/etc. theory being right. They're like separate theories, separate components. I'm not saying it's necessarily wrong, but it's not necessary for the others to work.

    Whatever works for the person trying to understand the theory.
    Well, except that we end up with different theories then. ...Which is perhaps an argument for going with with the object/field thing, except that I still tend to be a skeptic.

    I can certainly see how it doesn't work when used in the wrong context or misunderstood.
    That's may be why it's such a pet peeve of mine...and this isn't restricted to people whose understanding of Socionics is obviously marginal.

    Two examples of what I see as incorrect use of the idea:
    * People attempting to display Te by stating a bunch of irrelevant, insigificant factual details about something, and saying that that's what Te is all about.
    * People saying "he just connected one idea to another. That must be Ti."

    It's like a piece of pie.
    I understand where you're coming from. Based on this theory, if an LIE is speaking or writing and focusing on Te and Ni, then essentially all of the connective part of the discourse is really Ni; basically the Te part is merely being grounded in external facts, and how the thoughts all go together is Ni, which makes it seem that Ni is 99.99999% of it.

    Maybe....But I still have trouble seeing how we can differentiate Te from Fe from Se from Ne if they're all just about disconnected "stuff." The distinctions between "internal," "external," "dynamic," and "static" imply some sort of relationship of ideas. That's why I prefer to think of extraverted information aspects as having at least the beginnings of "relations."

    Maybe one could make an analogy to a flower. The petals of the flower are connected, and you could say that the connection is the introverted part. But even as you get away from the center, they are "going in" towards the center, where they connect. So, where does one draw the line between the part that is connecting in, and the part that is on the outside? Is the extraverted part just the infinitessimal tip of the petals? That would seem to make the extraverted part completely boring and insignificant, and give almost everything to the introverted part.

  18. #18
    MysticSonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,993
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Like, I find it really intuitive to point out what an object is, to give examples of an object. A mouse is an object, a pencil is an object, a star is an object. A thing is the object. But then what constitutes a thing? I'm having a hard time understanding that. What do you mean by when you say a thing?
    "To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"

    "Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."

Posting Permissions

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