Abstract/Involved and External/Internal?

[Aiss]

This (the three dichotomies) seems precisely what I've been looking for. However, in what way is Ti, for instance, based on external constraints? I thought that whereas extroverted Thinkers tended to base their judgments or decisions on agreements and the like, introverted ones tended to base them on their own criteria.

I know it wasn't addressed to me, but I consider Pinocchio way too biased to leave his opinion on its own. (OK, it's more that the example he gives of unvalued functions are usually patently wrong.) An alternative point of view won't hurt.

External/Internal doesn't refer to outside or inside the self - that's why the name is misleading. It's about external qualities (directly perceivable) and internal qualities (indirectly perceivable). For example how a person moves is an external observation; what the person feels is an internal one, you're effectively "guessing" at it based on external clues. This is how external, explicit elements imply internal elements. Both external and internal elements can focus outside the self - as in this example - or inside the self. Usually they work in dyads, that is, Si implies Ne, Se implies Ni, Ti implies Fe, Te implies Fi.

Bodies/Field, on the other hand, focuses on relation to the self. Bodies (object) elements are objective, quantitative - they focus on what is there and use criteria which are based on outside world. Field elements are subjective, qualitative - they perceive through the self, how it all fits together. Of course "objective" perception is still subject to all the biases human beings are susceptible to, it just refers to the criteria. People are more likely to want to agree - achieve a consensus of sorts - on what's related to their extroverted elements. So you'll hear Alphas complaining about Gammas and Gammas complaining about Alphas, each accusing the other of basing its decisions on agreements and the like. In fact, most people do that - in different matters.

Ti and Te are like proof and evidence. Ti focuses on the whole - things are ultimately correct or incorrect. Te focuses on the pieces - they're true or false. Te valuers are more likely to discuss facts in isolation, to establish their reliability. Ti valuers are more focused on validity of their reasoning, which is usually individual.

Fi and Fe are like "I don't like it" vs "That sucks". The analogy to Ti and Te is clear. Fe valuers are more likely to discuss likes and dislikes, to establish attitude. That is not to say they focus only on matters of taste, but for example may condemn an imperfect theory because "it sucks" while dismissing evidence. Whereas Te might condemn it if it's based on unreliable evidence or contradicts facts, even if it only requires slight adjustment.

Both attitudes are strengthened when elements are in ego rather than super-id. And people learn to avoid these mistakes to an extent, unless they choose to remain blind to their own biases.

What one considers collective, the other sees as individual. But my point is, despite all miscommunication involved, they more often than not yield similar results. What is type dependent is information processing itself, not conclusions reached. And that's why I'm protesting many comparisons which differentiate on this basis, often with sole purpose of making one side seem sensible and the other insensible, regardless of which is which. More often than not smart people end up doing the sensible thing, whatever their sociotype.

[krieger]

I personally don't think there really is a perfect all-encompassing definition of these terms. They are more like subtle flavors than like actual technical distinctions.

I should have said this about abstract/involved only.

External/Internal is actually easy to quantify: the first means an entity (which can be both a Pe object or a Pi perspective*) is refered to of which all properties are defined. This is to say the entity is "well-defined". Internal means a selection of properties is defined only. The entity is "not-well-defined". The first is refered to externally, to the entire set of properties, the object itself. The second is refered to internally, to the selection of properties (or, one property: the property of possessing these properties) that make up a part of the object only.

* Je and Ji do not refer to object and perspective respectively. This is a misconception in socionics.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[krieger]

Fi and Fe are like "I don't like it" vs "That sucks".

I think what you're describing is more related to Diffuse vs. Focal F functions.

In any case, when applied to my ESFp brother in law the above does not work.

[Aiss]

You approximatively inverted the properties of the dichotomies. By asserting that, you imply that Ti and Si are subjective and Ne and Fe are objective based on facts - which is obviously wrong. Logic/Thinking and Sensing are factual, they deal with "what is", while Intuition and Ethics/Feeling. Besides the fact that like this you appear like you've forgotten the descriptions of the functions, but just the notions themselves can reveal to you that Thinking can't be inherently "subjective" while Feeling can't be objective.

I never said half the things you accuse me here of, you know. Reread if you don't realize it yet.

External (objective, outside of self) criteria != based on fact. Jumping to this conclusion is the first mistake you made.

External objects (explicit perception by objective criteria) - the closest we get to "what it is" about the object, without considering environments' influence (beyond usual flaws of perception).

Internal objects (that is, implicit perception by objective criteria) - what its immediate environment implies about the object. "Immediate" is the key word here; it sets criteria outside of self.

Why are you inverting them and what are you trying to accomplish by this, I don't understand :|. You suggested that I'm "biased", biased towards what, are you misguiding new users just because you have a problem with me? I think all you can win with your political manoeuvres is disrespect. People should learn here not get involved into personal conflicts.

I consider most if not all examples you give ridiculous. They certainly don't work for your unvalued functions, and sometimes I don't see them working for your valued ones as well. It's indeed a speculation on my part that it's due to bias. It's perfectly possible you do it on purpose, of course.

Our history pretty much speaks for itself as far as making it personal is concerned, but you're welcome to try to rewrite it.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[krieger]

That's exactly it...

Objectivity: Te
(Interest in/focus on the) Object: Se

They are not the same thing, or even in more than marginal ways related.

[Aiss]

You confuse objectivity with real objects and theoretic with subjective.
Ti is objective, although not related to things. The only truly factual information types are Se and Te. But Ti, compared to Te is rather theoretical, as you know, there's where you confuse it with "subjective". Please read the definitions of these 4 terms and you understand without any further effort (if you're really willing to understand).

This is your main problem, you make too many equivocation fallacies and I told you previously that you'd better use Bodies/Fields for your sake, because the term "object" is too similar to "objectivity" although they have little meaningful connection, especially talking about psychic functions where such mistake make you misunderstand completely the whole picture, the names are just keywords. What's your justification to associate the "Bodies" partition with "objectivity"? Did you read the actual descriptions of these dichotomies, did you read Sedykh's article?? You never explained that, because it's a *fact* that "obj*" = "obj*"?
Please read what objects mean and note the "news" that humanity has discovered abstract objects a long time ago.

And read that damn article and descriptions, don't pretend that you miss them and don't reinvent Socionics.

I've told you too many times already that names have little to do with that. Actually you're the only one who keeps making the connection.

I use subjective as referring to perception through the subject, individual, qualitative, and objective as mostly subject-independent, collective, quantitative. Clearly, speaking of information elements, subject equals self. Even more obviously, none of our perception is truly objective, yet beyond these imperfections distinction exists in functional attitudes. I'm not sure if there's any point in explaining the obvious subjective-qualitative and objective-quantitative connection, but if you need to hear it explicitly, let me know.

What you call "objective" sounds more like "explicit" to me - directly perceivable, rather than actually focused outside of self.

I'd quote Jung's original descriptions, but as you seem to reject these as well, there's little point to it.


@labcoat: I don't claim they're the same thing, anyway you know I'm using a broader definition of object than you.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[The Ineffable]

What's the onomatopoeia for that sound when the bolt strikes, "zap"? Then ZAP!

I use subjective as referring to perception through the subject, individual, qualitative, and objective as mostly subject-independent, collective, quantitative. Clearly, speaking of information elements, subject equals self. Even more obviously, none of our perception is truly objective, yet beyond these imperfections distinction exists in functional attitudes. I'm not sure if there's any point in explaining the obvious subjective-qualitative and objective-quantitative connection, but if you need to hear it explicitly, let me know.

What you call "objective" sounds more like "explicit" to me - directly perceivable, rather than actually focused outside of self.

I'd quote Jung's original descriptions, but as you seem to reject these as well, there's little point to it.

Please read this page, section "Erroneous hypothesis Young" point 1:
http://translate.google.com/translat...t.html&prev=_t

1. Jung did not fully felt and not fully conveyed the difference between ekstravertirovannostyu leading mental mechanism and ekstravertirovannostyu psyche. His first as a matter of transition to the second, and taken together meant the orientation of the object. And the identity of almost merged with external objects, ie objects with orientation.

The same thing happens with introversion leading mental mechanism and introversion of the psyche. The first goes into the second, a person "takes a" winding down, and hence the direct conclusion that it is, ie, a person - is focused on the subject.

If in the case ekstratimami, Jung is very close to the truth, except that the entity is also an object and therefore to him in adult life focused not introtim, and the same ekstratim, in the case of introtimami had to introduce a completely new concept - the concept of mezhobektivnyh and intersubjective relations. Which in his adult life and focuses introtim.

It's overall, IMO, exactly what I said all the time:
- Jung's Introversion is not the same thing with Socionics Fields; while Extroversion is pretty close to Bodies - it's both about objects - it is not the same thing as well, as long as using Bodies information, the psyche perceives the self as another body, there's no schism between the self and the environment;
- Jung talks about an Introverted type, while Socionics talks about Fields type of information, which cannot be subjective by itself (in the sense of "me vs the rest", like in Jung).