Field: connections
Object: the things being connected
If you try to analyze it much further it stops making sense.
Field: connections
Object: the things being connected
If you try to analyze it much further it stops making sense.
Thanks for demonstrating how you're Ti-valuing.
Nothing that couldn't be found in a decent synonyms and contraries dictionary.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ad.php?t=19603
Perhaps, but this does seem to be an area of confusion. Also, if one looked for the meanings of those Socionics terms (especially "field") in a dictionary (s)he'd find FAR more incorrect and misleading answers than not, for the reasons I explained below:
Field: Comic Strip
Object: Thousands of coloured dots
I forgot to put the quippy line that goes with this. You definition of field and object, Joy, sounds like the same thing as static and dynamic. My example is a demonstration of that.
ILE
7w8 so/sp
Very busy with work. Only kind of around.
@Joy: colligate: to bind or fasten together. This is what Ti does - it binds things together into static networks (fields). What you did was give the most simplistic, static definitions of those things, which is characteristic of Ti, because it wants to get to the core/overriding principle, which is typically more simplistic than not.
Yes, the whole static/dynamic, objects/fields, internal/external concept is very Ti in nature.
I very much disagree. (Have you ever met an LII?which is characteristic of Ti, because it wants to get to the core/overriding principle, which is typically more simplistic than not.)
If you want to discuss this further we should start a different topic.
lol @ you.
who are the people that place the most importance on these definitions? i seem to remember that the entire model that ashton uses is based wholly upon them. true, steve and jriddy are rather fierce proponents of "external dynamics of blah," but who developed the model which depends rather strongly on such a
based oncore/overriding principle
.the most simplistic, static definitions of those things (functional definitions)
wait, i forgot. the ability to effectively describe and make sense of the "underlying principle" is Ni. Ni refers toof course. this is why the ashton model works. he describes precisely the processes by which these definitions -- these highly STATIC and SIMPLISTIC concepts -- come together to form a coherent system and interpretation of socionics.dynamic descriptions of abstract processes
that sounds extremely Te. it almost seems like the entire basis of ashton's model is taking those basic definitions and doing something radically brilliant like BINDING THEM INTO STATIC NETWORKS.
i wonder, by comparison, which of the Ti types on this forum have absolutely no interest in such STATIC, CORE definitions as these. hmm.
discojoe, jonathan, myself, UDP, ifmd, kioshi, snegledmaca, khamelion, and salawa are all Ti types with no interest in these functional definitions at all in interpreting socionics (jonathan might have some slight interest, but if he does it's because he doesn't know how to evaluate all of these ideas and doesn't want to limit his information intake). looks pretty convincing to me: interpreting socionics through the STATIC, CORE augustan definitions is Te.
wait... expat, implied, ezra, rick, munenori, and tereg all do this too.... it must be because deltas are too stupid and moralistic to understand such abstract concepts. especially the Ne types.
Thank you. I don't see how anyone could deny that Ti types strive to get to that core principle.Originally Posted by Carla
why? because he actually wants harmony with people?Originally Posted by niffweed17
Give me a fucking break. Those that truly know me know that I am one of the least arrogant people around. And don't be so quick to judge without any idea of the context/history. I am responding to a general tone of niffweed's that I have observed on numerous occasions recently in chats. And when people provide explanations/reasoning that doesn't resonate with him - he is quick to adopt a rageful tone of voice. It's an underlying tone that's been residing with niffweed lately.
And what's your investment in this? How do you have stake in this, and why does this prompt you to such strong feelings?
It truly amazes me how people selectively focus on information when making judgments about people with total disregard to a sequence of events or context. Maybe you're forgetting the uncountable amount of times I've explained myself, listened to absolutely everyone's point of view and addressed other people's points of view by trying to compare the observations we each share that caused us to come up with our points of view (see my thread "setting it straight"). Maybe you're also forgetting how Niffweed outright dismisses the descriptions I provide of things (including others that happen to have points of view different than his own), and when I HAVE tried to fully explain myself without directly stating truths, and says, "I'm not particularly interested in discussing that right now" or "I think discussing that is useless". I have been beyond diplomatic and welcoming with him, both online and in person, but it just comes to a point where enough is enough, and I react - which is what you saw above. After more than enough effort towards open discussion, if someone is dismissive enough, there comes a point where you just say "You just don't see it" and throw in the towel. I don't really care what Niffweed thinks anymore, I just get annoyed when he negatively affects a group setting such as what's happened in the chat on numerous occasions, the most recent example being me being kicked for saying that Danielle is not ESFp. He can choose not to listen to me; that's his choice, but he can't try to control my interaction with others.Originally Posted by glamourama
But NOOOOOOOO. It must be that I like to go around declaring truths without explanation - expecting all to accept verbatim or be considered stupid. That MUST be the kind of person I am, that must be the kind of person I've always been on this forum...
Again, take it in context given what I said above. If you're interested I'd be more happy to explain my point of view and compare it with yours, and if so, you'd see that I am more than open to hearing and considering everything. I understand that you may not have been aware of the history here, and I can understand how without that context, what I said could come across as arrogant, but now you know.Originally Posted by glamourama
lol @ niffweed...take your overly reductionist INTj bullshit somewhere else. I didn't even bother to finish reading your post after seeing how you cherry-picked various statements of mine, took them out of context, then proceeded to...hey!...colligate them into a nice little crystal lattice-like concept to appease yourself.
XoX, think of it this way. Fields are subjective by their nature. Objects are outwardly perceivable whereas Fields are constructs created by personal opinions, sensations, etc (hence why all objects are Xe and all fields are Xi). Static is a piecewise manner of looking at things where dynamic is constantly seeing things in moving entireties. That is a very generalized way of looking at it and shouldn't be quoted as an absolute. Finally Introverted vs. Extroverted is whether this perception is internal to the individual or object perceived or whether it is external to the individual or object perceived. So Internal Dynamic of Fields is a subjective vision of the internal state of the whole perception (because this is a perceiving irrational function, not a judging rational function). Hence why Ni is often considered the most abstract and "psychic" function, because it is based on a subjective (internally perceived), insubstantial (internal state) flow or big picture (dynamic). Meanwhile the External Dynamic of Fields is a subjective vision of the external state of the whole perception. So Si is a subjective (internally perceived), subtantiative (externally perceived) flow or big picture (dynamic).
Does this help you at all?
ILE
7w8 so/sp
Very busy with work. Only kind of around.
Fields can exist between things outside of you... they're not necessarily between you and something else.
Nobody said they were just between you and something else. Nor did I say that fields only exist in people. But fields are about the internal process of connecting things together which is a very subjective process. I think you're switching dynamicism with fields.
ILE
7w8 so/sp
Very busy with work. Only kind of around.
So if we look at the manner in which we classify living things according to kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species, which part of that system is subjective? Which part of the structure of the US government (with it's three branches and whatnot) is subjective?
Fields: connection/relationshipsI think you're switching dynamicism with fields.
Dynamics: activity
?
Field: Grassy area in which events of drunken stupor and sometimes ballgames are played.
Object: Do not pick up if in a field in certain areas of town.
Hello, my name is Bee. Pleased to meet you .
This thread confuses me.
Well, it is a bit hard to follow it after the first couple sentences. I bet you are very intelligent and intuitive. I have to go through this text bit by bit in order to understand it.
I do like your "layman simplifications" though. When you use a difficult word and then explain it.
It is like...I read your text...I concentrate hard...I kind of understand it for a second but then I blink and it is gone. I have to concentrate a lot in order to follow it.
Perhaps the problem is Ne instead?
About this ENFp thing (it used to be a top guess in my type polls)...There are now some ENFps and ISTps here and also IRL and I have tried to read their somewhat flirtative interactions but I cannot understand their interactions at all. Whenever I think someone is gonna get pissed off they actually think it was funny. Whenever I think someone is gonna laugh they get pissed off (or perhaps they are just pretending to be, I have no idea). Then ENFps and their psychological "evil eye" actually kinda scare me (female ENFp's mostly). Kind of judgemental irrationality. Totally unpredictable. And I totally dislike this smiley "" that ENFps use all the time. Not the smiley itself but the way they use it. Then there is the concept of "emotional validation of actions" or whatever I should call it. When an ISTp does something they seem to expect a Fi response which is either negative or positive so they know whether they are going the right direction or wrong direction (that's how I interpret it). For some reason this kind of "emotional validation of actions" makes me feel manipulated if it is directed at me. I wish to choose my actions without someone trying to change my path by emotional manipulation. By making me feel guilty with negativity or attempting to control me by giving me "praise". I feel like a puppet and I wish to take some distance.
What I would like is direct objective criticism when I do something wrong and basically nothing when I do something right. "Nothing" here doesn't mean "silence" but normal interaction. I assume that no criticism means that people like and agree with what I do. Direct objective criticism is something I can understand and argue against and if I choose to accept this criticism I don't feel manipulated because it was my decision to "submit" to this criticism.
Thus -> why would I be ENFp?
Oh, in order to not sound too negative (which I probably did) I don't really have bad relations with ENFps or ISTps. I am just puzzled by their mutual interaction.
lolOriginally Posted by niffweed17
maria reacting to the same sort of stuff that steve does on stickam, for one. the two of us with great consistency have reacted very negatively to this kind of excess abstraction that frankly doesnt mean anything and detracts from the sort of real socionics concepts to be talked about, which people like steve, jriddy, hkkmr, and jxrtes tend to trash in favor of their own various garbage.
reyn_til_runa also has shown something of a propensity to do this on stickam (ie last night talking the nature of reality with jxrtes) but her participation in that environment is much more limited.
Why is it Ne? Why is it blather? Unless you explain your reasoning, it seems more logical to believe that she's onto something, instead of accepting your one sentence judgements as a complete truth. It may be blather to you, but it's not to her. I have a feeling it's also not blather to people who actually understand what she's talking about. mn0good usually has indepth, insightful posts, analysis - because she usually tries to explain her reasoning and give evidence to support her claims.
i'm sure that they make perfect sense to her. technically mn0good was talking on a level pertaining purely to functional dynamics, and those definitions are not "wrong" per se, but to me everything that is described about the functional dichotomies tends to consist of very abstract concepts that don't lend themselves to easy application to people's behavior. essentially the sort of talk about how things are "dynamic field functions" and thus manifest with "homeostatic flow" only furthers the level of abstraction and does not really help to facilitate understanding of why the functions do what they do.
one thing that was very good about what mn0good was doing was that she was trying to explain everything which the theory was based on very thoroughly so that the abstractions built on top of that could be logically followed. lamentably, i cannot give steve similar credence; if you hear him speak about people not giving any tangible evidence but merely rambling on in his incessantly abstract world, you'd sort of see where the problem in his particular use of this vein of thinking lies: he lives so much in the abstract that when it comes time to apply "what does Ni mean" to a specific person, it turns into a discussion about "well, they just have that 'flow' and 'rhythm' " .... in short, no useful information whatsoever, to cover up typings that make equally minimal sense.
your confidence in my abilities is much obliged.Which is more than you are doing at the moment. Right now it seems to me you are simply pulling random insults out of thin air and attaching functions to them, which is silly. I would ask you to prove me wrong, but I have a feeling I'll get something like "you're not worth my precious attention" or some such evasion.
which brings me to precisely what i'm talking about in the first place; what mn0good is saying is not precisely wrong, but it's so damn abstract in building abstract concepts on top of other abstract concepts that it's very hard for me to make sense out of any conclusion that she draws.mn0good obviously understands what she's talking about. She's got alot of familiarity with the subject, or at least has a good grasp of it, so she's playing around with it, combining things and such. This makes it hard for people who are unfamiliar with subject in question. It's like showing your work in a math problem. If you don't understand the problem very well, it's easier when you show your work, when you can see how one step leads to another. When you're more advanced, you can often do that stuff in your head. But then a beginning student would be totally confused if you solved the problem right away because they have no idea how you did it. They can't see all the steps in your head, that have become automatic, second nature to you. It's the same thing with mn0good. She knows this stuff, so she's skipping a few steps, which makes it hard. She tried to break it down in a concise, easy to understand manner, but since some of the people may not be very knowledgeable in this area, it might be necessary to break it down more, to its very basic components, in order to grasp it fully and follow her train of thought. It helps if you ask very specific questions.
what XoX was saying about how "i have a really hard time making sense of all of that loosely tied information; i can do it, but it's hard for me to focus on that" is precisely the way i would see it, and i think the way that other gamma NTs would respond as well.
rather fundamentally disagree; see above.Of course, this is hard for some people. It's a blow to their egos, because you have to admit (if somewhat indirectly) that you don't know what she's talking about. You have to be open and willing to accept her premises, at least for the moment, in order to get a full grasp of the concept she's trying to illustrate.
i frankly don't need to understand such concepts. the thing is that they're not very useful or applicable for me personally to try to deal with them. i believe i get along much better when dealing with the ideas of people who don't insist on communicating their ideas in that fashion; but usually just sort of subsisting on my own interpretations.If this is inherant in ENTp-Tis, I can see how some people might conclude arrogance. Of course, I don't actually know too many ENTps, but I have seen it in other types. But I don't think it's necessarily type related. If someone doesn't explain their reasoning or walk others through the steps that are so automatic for them, then people may often conclude arrogance or some other such term. I know I do. It's humiliating to be forced to admit you're wrong and you can't argue with them on a conceptual level because you don't understand the concepts involved, when they give little evidence to support their claims and yet expect you to accept their theories as a truth.
But, the solution to that is, just be willing to learn. You don't have to accept what they're saying as set in stone, just to be willing to consider it. Of course, it helps if you understand it first.
by no means whatsoever is this personal; where the hell did you come up with that?
You are suggesting someone else ignore a possible opinion, source of evidence, experience, because they rub you the wrong way on a personal level? That is bias and arrogance if I have ever seen it.
i have had some very long PM conversations with XoX. i think that to suggest IEE for him is absurdly off the mark and a completely unreasonable suggestion.
"Dynamics" is another word for change. Internal changes of connections means changing connections inside of something. That's pretty self-explanatory, but for there to be change there must also be time, which is why -Ni is objective time. By "internal", what is meant is the point of reference from which action (change) is observed. The internal world sees things from only one point of reference at a time; the external world sees two points of reference in relation to each other.