Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: External Statics w/o field or object

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    8,313
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default External Statics w/o field or object

    Can someone go abouts explaining or showing me a description of the four element types that don't include the field or object part?

    Extroverted Ti is really Se, because they are both External Statics. but for every object there is a field, or visa versa, so you should easily be able to describe what an external static is without reference to objects or fields. or describe internal statics, or external dynamics, without reference to objects or fields.

    I'm mostly having trouble with what the definition of internal and external are, and in terms of statics and dynamics also.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    moon
    Posts
    4,848
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    external/internal and static/dynamic is like a compound version of object/field. compound relations between either objects or fields need two descriptors. external/internal and static/dynamic don't exist without eachother. one immediately creates the need for the other. it starts with 2 distinctions, object and field. 2 2s then become 4.. that is static/dynamic & external/internal, 2 4s are 8.. that is functions or you can call it 4 2s. 4 4s or 2 8s next, it gets very confusing.. confusing is why we are ignoring 1 altogether. and that is only considering a dual progression. you could really progress any way you want. 3, 9, etc.
    Last edited by crazedrat; 10-04-2009 at 04:30 AM.

  3. #3
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    8,313
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I am so horny for less of this.

  4. #4
    ***el X Mercenary
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Socionix sleeper cell
    TIM
    Te-ISTp
    Posts
    1,426
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    lol

  5. #5
    Creepy-Diana

    Default

    .

  6. #6
    Sauron, The Great Enemy ArchonAlarion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    TIM
    Yet to be determined
    Posts
    4,411
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    That's pretty good Diana.
    The end is nigh

  7. #7
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    8,313
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    It's basically the internal/external part I don't understand from your explanation. How am I supposed to know if I'm pulling information directly or indirectly and if its hidden or not?

  8. #8
    Contrarian Traditionalist Krig the Viking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Canada's Prairie Farmland
    TIM
    C-LII
    Posts
    2,608
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    As I understand it, external would be things that can be strictly defined or measured, and internal would be things that cannot.

    You can measure the size and weight of a can of soup (Se), you can strictly define the logical relationship of one can to another (1 can + 1 can = 2 cans)(Ti), you can measure how the can of soup physically affects its surroundings over time (Si), and I can't think of a good example for Te.

    On the other hand, you can't measure the possibilities of what might be in the soup can (Ne), nor can you strictly measure someone's mood (Fe) or relationships (Fi), and I can't think of an example for Ni, although if there's anything that can't be measured, it's Ni.

    (Interesting that I can't seem to think of any examples for my Id functions. Hmm.)
    Quaero Veritas.

  9. #9
    Azeroffs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    California
    TIM
    ENTj 3w4 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,200
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Krig the Viking View Post
    As I understand it, external would be things that can be strictly defined or measured, and internal would be things that cannot.

    You can measure the size and weight of a can of soup (Se), you can strictly define the logical relationship of one can to another (1 can + 1 can = 2 cans)(Ti), you can measure how the can of soup physically affects its surroundings over time (Si), and I can't think of a good example for Te.

    On the other hand, you can't measure the possibilities of what might be in the soup can (Ne), nor can you strictly measure someone's mood (Fe) or relationships (Fi), and I can't think of an example for Ni, although if there's anything that can't be measured, it's Ni.

    (Interesting that I can't seem to think of any examples for my Id functions. Hmm.)
    you can see that if you cut open the top of the can, the soup won't fall out all over the place(Te). You can see how the soup can got there (Si)

    It isn't clearly defined why the soup can got there?(Ni)
    3w4-5w6-9w8

  10. #10
    Creepy-Diana

    Default

    .

  11. #11

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by polikujm View Post
    It's basically the internal/external part I don't understand from your explanation. How am I supposed to know if I'm pulling information directly or indirectly and if its hidden or not?
    I think the problem is that there's an assumption in Socionics that these things (internal/external, static/dynamic, field/object) actually define the IM elements, in other words that if all we had were these concepts, then we could do away with every other definition, because we could derive the rest of the concepts.

    But in reality, the IM elements of course came from Jung, though Augusta added her own twist, and then later she added these other concepts. So, for example, in talking about "external dynamics of fields," you have to somehow understand those three things (external, dynamics, fields) in such a way that you end up with the idea that it's about the senses, etc.

    But if you just knew only how Socionists have described what external, dynamics, and fields are, you'd be unlikely to come up with everything Socionists have said about what Si.

    Of course, mathematically, one can say that they're "equivalent," which means that there's a one-to-one mapping between these two ways of defining an IM element. If someone says "external dynamics of fields," then there is only one possible IM element that could be, which is Si. Therefore people can say "see, we have defined it." But it leads to a much more abstract and general definition than Socionists mean by Si.

    So bottom line is that while Diana's explanation is very good here, and it's correct according to what the theory is, if you're trying to understand Socionics that way, there will always be difficulty, because the answers to your questions (e.g., what is the line between what's "hidden" and what's "measurable") are always that whatever comes out with the result that the IM elements are as described by Socionics is the correct way of understanding it.

  12. #12
    Sauron, The Great Enemy ArchonAlarion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    TIM
    Yet to be determined
    Posts
    4,411
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan View Post
    But if you just knew only how Socionists have described what external, dynamics, and fields are, you'd be unlikely to come up with everything Socionists have said about what Si.

    Of course, mathematically, one can say that they're "equivalent," which means that there's a one-to-one mapping between these two ways of defining an IM element. If someone says "external dynamics of fields," then there is only one possible IM element that could be, which is Si. Therefore people can say "see, we have defined it." But it leads to a much more abstract and general definition than Socionists mean by Si.
    .
    You found the issue but your solution is wrong.

    By understanding the aspects you understand what the elements ACTUALLY are rather than the pop-psyche bullshit attributed to them. That's not to say "aspectonics" comes to totally different conclusions than Jung, though. It clarifies and, yes, abstracts and specifies what the mechanisms behind the perception behind the thought process behind the behaviors are. It also alleviates the enneagram distortions (comfort=9=ISXp, etc) that have perpetrated typings.
    The end is nigh

  13. #13
    UDP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    "Come with me if you want to live"
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    14,907
    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by polikujm View Post
    Can someone go abouts explaining or showing me a description of the four element types that don't include the field or object part?

    Extroverted Ti is really Se, because they are both External Statics. but for every object there is a field, or visa versa, so you should easily be able to describe what an external static is without reference to objects or fields. or describe internal statics, or external dynamics, without reference to objects or fields.

    I'm mostly having trouble with what the definition of internal and external are, and in terms of statics and dynamics also.
    No

  14. #14
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    8,313
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Thanks for trying to explain, but it sounds just horrible so far.

    Ryu, you have 50 Cents on your avatar. I don't really see any reason to listen to you.

    Anyway, thanks.

  15. #15
    Shazaam's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Lamp
    TIM
    AB-IEI-Ni
    Posts
    13,813
    Mentioned
    597 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Functions are functions are functions are zombies !!

  16. #16
    escaping anndelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp
    Posts
    6,359
    Mentioned
    215 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by polikujm View Post
    Can someone go abouts explaining or showing me a description of the four element types that don't include the field or object part?

    Extroverted Ti is really Se, because they are both External Statics. but for every object there is a field, or visa versa, so you should easily be able to describe what an external static is without reference to objects or fields. or describe internal statics, or external dynamics, without reference to objects or fields.

    I'm mostly having trouble with what the definition of internal and external are, and in terms of statics and dynamics also.
    External Statics would be that which is relatively stable/consistent AND also well-defined/obvious.

    For example,
    if I am talking about the color of something, and you don't know what I'm talking about, I can show you the physical color and thus each time I referred to it after that, you would know exactly what I was referring to. One could say that I had defined the color term for you. There's no doubt as to what I am referring to. And no interpretation or approximations are needed. The color isn't likely to change, and if it does, then I would likely be using a different term to refer to the different color.

    Another example,
    if I said something like "All A are B; All B are C; therefore All A are C" then I am creating an explicit argument showing you how I came to the conclusion that all A are C.
    I defined the properties/categories of A, B, and C for you.
    By using the terms "all" and "are" these properties/categories are treated as being relatively stable/consistent.
    I have also defined my conclusion process for you, so that it is obvious to you how I came to that conclusion.

    However,
    if u were talking about A, and I treated the conversation as if you were talking about C, then you might be confused (depending on how well defined A and C are).
    For example,
    if you were talking about barn owls, and I treated it as if you were talking about birds in general, then we would have difficulties in our conversation. If I couldn't tell you how I had made that jump, then obviously the jump wasn't well-defined in my own mind.
    If we were talking about something more abstract than owls/birds, such as....socionics elements, which aren't so well-defined, then we'd probably wind up in a number of arguments as to what specifically our terms are referring to, as well as how we came to the conclusions we came to.
    If neither of us chose to define our terms, then our arguments would get nowhere as we'd be likely referring to different aspects of each element (even slight differences in interpretations can make a huge difference in discussions).
    Compound this with not taking the time to define our premises and conclusions, and we've got the recipe for never ending forum fodder.

    Beta STs deal specifically with external statics. That is why they can often seem so demanding and/or stuck to some other types. They refer to things that are relatively stable AND if not now, then can become well-defined or made obvious to someone else, without the need for reinterpretations or approximations. (thankfully, though, there is more to a personality than their ego functions)


    I won't go on unless asked to. Except for just enough to say that:
    The external/internal and static/dynamic properties refer to the concepts of:
    * the levels of definedness/obviousness (or levels of approximation)
    * and the levels of stability/consistency (or levels of change/movement)
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp

  17. #17
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,937
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Objects/Fields, Static/Dynamic and Judging/Perceiving seem to be the "core" element features - they're the ones that distinguish between temperaments, so they seem stronger to me. The other four dichotomies are the club and quadra divisions (Alpha/Gamma, Beta/Delta, Socialite/Researcher, Administrator/Humanitarian),
    Yes, good job.

    The only thing I would add is that Object/Field is the weakest (least influential) of the topmost three. One can understand socionics perfectly fine without it so the option presents itself to just remove it from the "core" entirely.

Posting Permissions

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