I think you meant Te-Base (Extroverted type). The personalized Bodies/Fields comes from the Base function, right?Originally Posted by Aiss
Edit: and I also think that you're not careful enough with the difference between B/F and Internal/External. I understand what you mean and I overall agree, although I think the way you explain it can't make the difference, maybe you even confuse them a little.
No, I meant Te-ego. Underline "standards" as well, "outside of self" part was descriptive of them. Primary focus in Te-creatives is on the base obviously, but Thinking is still related to external standards in them (which is why I call it "objective").
Although, the idea of "personalized" extroverted element when it's base is interesting...
I think the way people call Te a "black box" (referring to transparency, like in testing) is confusing it with internal/external, so I don't know how far we do or don't agree on it, really.
I'd say:
- modelling what's inside, "black box" vs directly examining things, "white box" is internal vs external - this isn't perfect comparison, but Te definitely isn't the former
- focus on outside-of-self standards vs your personalized inner model of the world etc. - bodies vs fields
Probably the way I'm explaining B/F doesn't work well for internal elements, especially internal objects, but I think the problem is with the words and not the idea here. I find it closer to objective/subjective because I see objectivity in something that can be described as external standard. Using a scale gives you an objective result; using personal experience and impression gives you a subjective result. Then again "internal scale" isn't probably all this objective, and possibly talking of quadrants would make more sense, but I'm not sure if it's even worth it to establish objectivity/subjectivity levels.
Then it's wrong, I mean it's not Socionics. As you know, there was some place where Aushra refuted this opinion of Jung. I don't deny that you might have not read "socionists" saying this thing, but they were wrong. Like I said, Wikisocion claims (at least claimed when I read the last time) the same thing, that this is a more "modern interpretation" of the B/F, while in fact it was borrowed from Jung disregarding the Socionics basics, because it's simpler and easier to understand for them. I repeat a fact: Aushra dismissed it *after* Jung, on purpose.
Obviously - it is in fact where you came from but you forgot, Jung was talking about Introverted/Extroverted types (equiv of Fields/Bodies Base), while he didn't make quite big difference between the type and the primary function. This is the closest you can get to Socionics on this idea.
Introverted types often (I'm not sure if always) end-up in referencing everything to their internal view. The Extroverts are the opposite, think about LSI vs SLE.
I don't know how this is connected to our issue, but anyway, I recall that you once associated them to Internal/External. At the time I wasn't careful about what exactly "black box" and "white box" mean, but now that I was interested in whether they're exact or not, I found that they correspond to things that were known and agreed for a long time - that Ti analyzes the structure of any system for correctness and consistency, while Te tests its functionality for outcome and results.
Maybe it all traces back to your view that somehow (or "maybe") all Ti types are consciously subjective, throwing their sometimes unjustified stubbornness on that, that they stick to some view because it's "their view". This is wrong and you should (IMO) face this directly, to resolutely clarify it to yourself, don't let it hang in the air anymore.
IMO this approach is mistaken. I saw others people using it (eg. anndelise) but really, it's totally off, in the end anything we know and perceive is subjective because it's always only the image of reality that our brain makes. If this has been taken as paramount, science would not even have existed in the first place, we could not even talk about logic, facts, truth, fallacies, and so on.
I understand your confusion, Bodies, Dynamic and External are similar, and so the other three. But they are different things and only a confusion about the nature of each can cause that. "External" are things that have a support, that are either supported by hard factual evidence (normally Te and Se) or a correct reasoning, proven rules, or even a reasoning based on made-up rules/assumptions/conventions (which they themselves may be subjective, but not necessarily the reasoning based on them) etc.
It's like the movies, some are fantasy, others are realistic. When watching a fantasy one, you're forced to use your Internal type of information (Intuition and Ethics), otherwise you can't accept something that doesn't make sense. External functions simply don't process the largest part of that because it's not real, not externally supported.
This doesn't mean that External information can't be mental, or virtual, but it still have strict external bounds - eg the conditions and assumptions, nothing more or less. But when you're trying to solve a paradox - no matter if it's mathematical or something that happens in real life and you can't understand - you are forced to use Internal functions again to try to view things differently (now this is what I call "subjective"), to "break the rules" in your mind to check if something sensible can emerge, or - if you choose to limit yourself to the reasonable or factual - dismiss its existence altogether. That's what usually makes LIIs lock themselves away to ruminate complex dilemmas while LSIs are so resolutely skeptical about "nonsense".
---
Now Bodies/Fields is harder to understand, but at least you can certainly tell which is not Internal/External using exclusion: when that's nothing like different view, personal view, hope, arbitrary convention or assumption, something not certain, feeling and intuition in the general sense.
Concluding, the easiest and most accurate method to differentiate what comes from B/F from what comes from Ext/Int is to use this exclusion, that means to avoid focusing on the Gamma values (it has nothing to do with the fact that you're an ILI, Aiss) at first, direct your analysis on the ones that are B+Int or F+Ext instead, and eventually the behavior/reasoning of the types that prefer them (in Ego). This is what I used, to create my understanding and have a so strong opinion on the IAs, I didn't try to keep it secret, just I thought that it's obvious.
Last edited by The Ineffable; 01-14-2011 at 01:41 AM.
It's okay; I posted it already here: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...848#post725848
Note one thing, that I'd like people not overlook in my opinions: this is an example of something that I concluded myself, by accurate observations and analysis, which I found much later that it was said by Aushra. Of course, just because Aushra said may not necessarily be a confirmation IRL, though I think it says something, when two people come around the same conclusion independently - especially since she is the parent of this field.
Obviously, this is not a claim that I'm always right, even in the framework of Socionics. For instance, I'm currently skeptical towards Aushra's opinion that animals don't have the same types as humans, especially when they are mammals. It's just the evidence that some of my methods actually work and I'm not making this up out of the void.
Did you ever heard me denying this fact? Even more, I recently posted a quote of Aushra that states that these are fundamental to Socionics. I'm sorry, but I was one of the first people who actually pushed the importance of Aspectonics on this forum, excluding the ones I don't know of. The first people I remember claiming that the functions are "Internal Dynamics of Fields" were ArchonAlarion and polikujm, though they never sensibly explained - nor I think they understand - what these are. One of the first issues that I remember was the "most fundamental dichotomy" where I rejected that Rationality is one, but it's emergent from B/F and D/S, I never after digressed from this.
Not trying to boast, but you're off here, if based on my activity you don't acknowledge this, it's either ignorance or misrepresentation, IMO.
Me and Aiss were debating something else here, the old issue of object/subject related to Extroversion (or - alternatively - B/F). I just expressed that if Jung's subject/object can be applicable, it may be applicable for types depending on their first function (-> E/I), but not on functions and IEs themselves, neither based on the B/F property of functions in other positions than Base.
I know, on that I actually based my opinion. Just that we were just discussing if (and how) that's possibly be applicable in Socionics.
But I experience a deja-vu: this is exactly what I was telling you in one of our first encounters. Just that currently, we own the proof that Jung's assignation of subject/object properties on functions is officially invalid in Socionics.
Those paragraphs are different things, responding to different statements (on different issues!) of Aiss, you fucking idiot! I never claimed that anndelise said that Ti is specifically subjective, but I heard this idea at her that human perception in general is. Even if it's a false memory - and I apologize if so - it was only an informative remark, totally irrelevant to my conclusions.
Our discussion on the matter ends here.
This is the actual problem, it is true in Jung but it is false in Socionics.
(and it's easy to say that you understand even if you don't)
Either way you take it, it's still wrong (in Socionics, just in case you forget). The actual awareness of inside/outside or subject/objects is inapplicable on IEs, as read in Aushra's quote. I used both meanings, btw, depending on what I was answering.
---
And one more thing: you're further attempting to smear the line between Jung and Socionics, thing that you've done before. If you'll continue to do that, I'll be forced to report you to the administration. I don't accept anymore that you derail my posts with claims that what Jung wrote is necessarily and immediately applicable to Socionics. No offense, but I asked you this for quite several times; if you don't listen to reason you leave me no other option.
Exactly, she added herself B/F, why would she say that it is invalid? What are you talking about here?
Additionally, it's Bodies/Fields. So it's harder for you to make the confusion with Object/Subject, ok?
What she said is what she said, I don't see why you need to always misrepresent.
Then we have nothing to talk about and you need to find a Jungian forum to discuss your bullshit.
Oh, and BTW,
I forgot to mention that Augusta made that mention in the chapter "Erroneous hypothesis Young". (I hope you'll not use the quirk of automatic translation to claim that that "Young" doesn't mean "Jung", the same word "Юнга" is later translated as "Jung's")
So even if you don't understand the Socionics functions and the differences between the systems, the idea you've got to remember is that Jung is not Socionics, capisci? Having this clear, from now on, every time you make such claim means that you do a misrepresentation on purpose.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote