Extraversion/Introversion vs Static/Dynamic
Why is it that 'objects in motion' (extraverted, dynamic) are considered rational but 'fields in motion' (introverted, dynamic) are considered irrational (and vice versa for things at rest)? Why is the state of rest or motion reversed between extraversion and introversion in relation to rationality; what does 'motion' represent in this context?
http://www.socionics.us/theory/information.shtml
[Stormy] [LII]
Upon further investigation, it seems it would make more sense for 'objects at rest' and 'fields in motion' to be extraverted information-elements and 'fields at rest' and 'objects in motion' to be introverted information-elements:
Extraverts
- qualities of objects are taken for granted, while interrelationships between objects are seen as being malleable; change interaction of objects to better fit qualities of objects
Introverts
- interrelationships are taken for granted, while qualities of object are seen as being malleable; adapt qualities of objects to better fit their interrelationships
(http://www.socionics.us/theory/ext_int.shtml)
This produces the following (retaining all other dichotomous correspondences):
= internal statics of objects
= external statics of objects
= external dynamics of objects
= internal dynamics of objects
= internal dynamics of fields
= external dynamics of fields
= external statics of fields
= internal statics of fields
In effect, this swaps the object/field dichotomy from extraversion/introversion to irrational/rational, which may align better with the descriptions:
Irrational
- attention focused on correct states of mind and body (intuition and sensing), which produce certain actions and emotions (logic and ethics)
Rational
- attention focused on correct actions and emotions (logic and ethics), which produce certain states of mind and body (intuition and sensing)
(http://www.socionics.us/theory/rat_irr.shtml)
That is to say, states of mind and body are objects (they stand alone) whereas actions and emotions are fields (relations between two objects).
[Stormy] [LII]
Nobody really understands this static dynamic shit except smilingeyes here.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
I don't know why things need to be so complicated that you read and can not grasp the idea. I think what is importan - to understand what exactly the socionists mean by static and dynamic. it looks like they mean quite a lot without clear explanation why things happen they way they happen. As far as I knwo there si no clear explanation why some types belong to static or dynamic cathegory and different socionists identify it by different functions. Have anybody got simple and clear explanation?
School of Associative socionics: http://socionics4you.com/
I expect to make notes on the section of Augusta's works where she talks about blocking the functions soon. Maybe that will help clear some things up.
No rush, Rick...anytime before I learn Russian via osmosis frequenting socionics sites...Originally Posted by Rick
-
Seriously though, thanks for all your work.
[Stormy] [LII]
Extraverts
- qualities of objects are taken for granted, while interrelationships between objects are seen as being malleable; change interaction of objects to better fit qualities of objects
Introverts
- interrelationships are taken for granted, while qualities of object are seen as being malleable; adapt qualities of objects to better fit their interrelationships
I like this disinction between Extraversion/Introversion.
I think the most applicable example I have used regarding people on this forum is the MBTI/socionics fued. Ti seems to see the functions and such, and are more likely to change the meaning of the actual types. Te people like me argue that the definitions of the functions are up for debate, but that the people who we are describing are the same. For example, when I brought up an MBTI description of Ti to MysticSonic, he immediately thought that it was crap, and that it didn't describe Ti at all. My point was that there were different ways that Ti could be defined.Oh well.
The only thing is that I don't think that I'm "expending energy" when I'm reasoning these things... maybe judgment is just like that either way?
BTW Stormy, you look ILI.
The Te side of that makes more sense to me. I'll have to think about your Extra/Intro example. Perhaps a real life example or scenario of each could help.Extraverts
- qualities of objects are taken for granted, while interrelationships between objects are seen as being malleable; change interaction of objects to better fit qualities of objects
Introverts
- interrelationships are taken for granted, while qualities of object are seen as being malleable; adapt qualities of objects to better fit their interrelationships
I like this disinction between Extraversion/Introversion.
I think the most applicable example I have used regarding people on this forum is the MBTI/socionics fued. Ti seems to see the functions and such, and are more likely to change the meaning of the actual types. Te people like me argue that the definitions of the functions are up for debate, but that the people who we are describing are the same. For example, when I brought up an MBTI description of Ti to MysticSonic, he immediately thought that it was crap, and that it didn't describe Ti at all. My point was that there were different ways that Ti could be defined.
The only thing is that I don't think that I'm "expending energy" when I'm reasoning these things... maybe judgment is just like that either way?
BTW Stormy, you look ILI.
I'm not sure which camp I fall into - I'd say the information elements are up for debate until I find a conclusion with enough consistency to satisfy me. Then I'll start debating types, probably with reference to information elements that are suddenly set-in-stone.Extraverts
- qualities of objects are taken for granted, while interrelationships between objects are seen as being malleable; change interaction of objects to better fit qualities of objects
Introverts
- interrelationships are taken for granted, while qualities of object are seen as being malleable; adapt qualities of objects to better fit their interrelationships
I like this disinction between Extraversion/Introversion.
I think the most applicable example I have used regarding people on this forum is the MBTI/socionics fued. Ti seems to see the functions and such, and are more likely to change the meaning of the actual types. Te people like me argue that the definitions of the functions are up for debate, but that the people who we are describing are the same. For example, when I brought up an MBTI description of Ti to MysticSonic, he immediately thought that it was crap, and that it didn't describe Ti at all. My point was that there were different ways that Ti could be defined.
-
Why would you be 'expending energy'?
Well, that's a relief. You look...SLI, like an s-fly. Nice ears.
-
[Stormy] [LII]
GAH... nevermind that. For somereason I was thinking of Te, but in that case I would be using Ti. The only difference is that, for me, Te is the determining factor over what Ti has to say.
Another indication that you are INFj rather than ENFj, btw.
No no no.Another indication that you are INFj rather than ENFj, btw.
It's not really a Te thing, but rather a dynamic thing. It this case, ENFJ and ISTP would be closer than INFJ and ISTP.
Here, I'd say Fe and Te count as the same thing, since they are both Extraverted Judgment, and by definition dynamic types choose Extraverted (objective) Judgment over Introverted (subjective) Judgment as the determining factor. INFJs would believe more in subjective Judgment.
Oh, here we go. This gives it a bit more context. http://www.socionics.us/theory/ext_int.shtml
That describes my view too.Te people like me argue that the definitions of the functions are up for debate, but that the people who we are describing are the same.
Yes, indeed.BTW Stormy, you look ILI.
How do you combine that with INFjs being Delta and preferring
As for
Eh... maybe Jadae can clarify then. But for some reason he just doesn't seem INFJ to me... either that or the people I've thought were ENFJ might be INFJ.
@Jadae, question: form>function, or function>form?
An object's form can often be directly relaed to its function.
"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."
OK smarty... then, do you focus more on the presentation of something, or the practical functionality of it? That's what I'm asking.
Ahhh, I have to chose already? I went over that list several times last night :/ Let me think.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote