= 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
If we're going by these definitions, as an SEE you'd be weak in Ne, which is "Internal Statics of Objects". I have "Fi" as "Implicit Object Statics". Why did I define it that way? Because "personal feelings" and "personal qualities" are "static" and "implicit" properties of "objects".
I think this guy was IEE:
Here's a pic:
dat upturned nose! it's a dead giveaway! (this might sound like a Maritsa-statement, but I swear to god)
also, those big, red lips!
And some commentary:
The classical view of Peter's character is mainly drawn out of his wife's and usurper's memoirs. She described him as an “idiot”, “drunkard from Holstein”, “good-for-nothing” etc. This portrait of Peter can be found in most history books, including 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica:Nature had made him mean, the smallpox had made him hideous, and his degraded habits made him loathsome. And Peter had all the sentiments of the worst kind of small German prince of the time. He had the conviction that his princeship entitled him to disregard decency and the feelings of others. He planned brutal practical jokes, in which blows had always a share. His most manly taste did not rise above the kind of military interest which has been defined as "corporal's mania," the passion for uniforms, pipeclay, buttons, the "tricks of parade and the froth of discipline." He detested the Russians, and surrounded himself with Holsteiners.There have been many attempts to revise the traditional characterisation of Peter and his policies. The Russian historian A.S. Mylnikov gives us a very different view of Peter III:Many contradictory qualities existed in him: keen observation, zeal and sharp wit in his arguments and actions, incaution and lack of perspicuity in conversation, frankness, goodness, sarcasm, a hot temper, and wrathfulness.
“Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.”
― Anais Nin
Personal feelings are not an inherent property of an object. They are part of the relational field between a person and the object. Think of it as a bubble map. The person is a node. The object is a separate node. The link between them is the feelings towards the object. Hence Fi.Originally Posted by Kenneth Chesney
Implict...the person provides the meaning
Involved...the person actually experiences it and cannot transfer that experience via words, formulas, categories, etc
Field...relational connection between two or more objects
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
The other day, I was hanging out with an SLE friend who has three cats. I was petting one of the cats, kind of "slapping" it on its rear end. The cat was rubbing its muzzle up against me and arching its back really high. My friend said, "don't pet him like that, you're going to hurt him". I said, "no dude, when he rubs his muzzle up against stuff and arches his back like that, it means he likes it." My friend was silent for a second and then started talking about something completely unrelated. I think I hit his PoLR with that comment.
"Personal feelings" are merely "what we feel inside".
Feelings "existing inside a person/object" is related to "the involvement" aspect. Personal feelings are the experiences (involvement) which we give meaning to (implicit). But it requires something to trigger those feelings, whether an external object, a memory of an event, etc.
To simplify: Take a magnet and a nail. The magnet sits there and does its thing between its poles. The nail sits elsewhere, doing nothing. They are each individual objects, not influiencing each other, not creating a field together UNTIL you bring the two separate objects together at which point they create a magnetic field between them.
The magnet needed the nail to expand its field,
The cat needed your hands petting it to feel the pleasure/pain.
Simplisticly:"Personal feelings" are merely "what we feel inside".
Fe is the straight up emotion. The Ni/Si creates the fields for Fe.
Fi is the emotion in relation to something else.
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
I understood the cat's feeling of "like" because it was behaving in a certain way; from the cat's actions, I deduced an "implicit" and "static" property of an "object".a: capable of being understood from something else though unexpressed
Yet the cat wasnt feeling pleasure/pain until you did somethign to trigger it.
And yes, i am sure you read the emotional orientation the cat was having to your actions, an emotional orientation that would not have happened if you weren't petting it. You even said yourself, you perceived the cat felt a certain way ABOUT you petting it.
You deduced an implicit and state property of an object's field in relation to your actions.
A field requires at least two objects.
An object does not require another object to be an object.
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
Cat = object
Feeling of like = static property
Indirect means of knowing = implicit
I basically said, "this cat likes these conditions", and in doing so I deduced a property about the "particle", not the "field".In the physical sciences, a particle is a small localized object to which can be ascribed several physical or chemical properties such as volume or mass. The term macroscopic particle usually refers to particles much larger than atoms and molecules. These are usually abstracted as point-like particles, even though they have volumes, shapes, structures, etc. Examples of macroscopic particles would include dust, sand, pieces of debris during a car accident, or even objects as big as the stars of a galaxy.A field is a physical quantity that has a value for each point in space and time. Defining the field as "numbers in space" shouldn't detract from the idea that it has physical reality. “It occupies space. It contains energy. Its presence eliminates a true vacuum.” The field creates a "condition in space" such that when we put a particle in it, the particle "feels" a force.
The thing with implicit fields is that you cannot directly perceive the field. You know that there is a relationship betwen the two+ objects going on, but it cannot be explicitely seen. So you have to grab clues elsewise. Such as the cat's reactions to what is happening to it.
As I said...an object does not need another object to be an object. But a field requires two or more objects to exist.
The cat exists as is. But it's feelings of like/dislike, attraction/repulsion, etc towards you and/or towards your actions did not exist until you created the field.
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
"That" and "it" refers to your method ofpetting the cat.I was petting one of the cats, kind of "slapping" it on its rear end. The cat was rubbing its muzzle up against me and arching its back really high. My friend said, "don't pet him like that, you're going to hurt him". I said, "no dude, when he rubs his muzzle up against stuff and arches his back like that, it means he likes it."
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
You were talking about how this cat related to your method of petting.
Field = how an object relates to or interacts with another object.
Object = cat
Object = your hand
Field = how the cat felt about your hand
That is what you were talking about, how the cat felt about your hand. How one object related to another object.
You know the image of a finger pointing at the moon, right?
The moon is an object.
The finger is an object.
The finger pointing at the moon creates an invisible "field" between the finger and the moon.
In this case, though, the reactions of the cat are not the moon. The reactions of the cat are the clues as to the relational field between your hand and the cat.
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
A field is a physical quantity that has a value for each point in space and time. Defining the field as "numbers in space" shouldn't detract from the idea that it has physical reality. “It occupies space. It contains energy. Its presence eliminates a true vacuum.” The field creates a "condition in space" such that when we put a particle in it, the particle "feels" a force.
The field is independent of the objects; it is like the "medium" in which the objects exist. The field is "that which acts upon the objects"; it is "the conditions" under which an object operates.
This, among other errors blocks you from understanding socionics' aspects, elements, quadras, etc.
For example, your aspect set up has no meaning for N, S, T, nor F. What i mean is that your aspects cannot be used to define N, nor S, nor T, nor F.
You use "explicit" to refer to objects (Xe) oriented elements.
You use "implicit" to refer to fields (Xi) oriented elements.
Your aspect defintion of Gamma is that they are only object valuing with no value of fields. (A scary thing to have for engineers.)
Your aspect definition of Alpha is that they only value fields, not objects. (How can there be a field without at least two objects??)
So not only is your elements off aspect-defining-wise, but your model A is f'd up too.
Let me know when you stop confusing 'the pointing' as 'the moon'.
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
a: capable of being understood from something else though unexpressed
Here is me explaining what I use "explicit" and "implicit" to refer to:
So basically, "explicit" information originates from the "environment". It is what we immediately detect via our sensory organs. It requires no further thought or contemplation; it is "just there". "Implicit" information originates from an "operation" in the brain. It is the result of a "calculation" or a "transformation" that the function performs. It then seems reasonable to think that a person with an "explicit" primary function would seem to be "more focused on their environment" than a person with an "implicit" primary function, who would seem to be "more focused on their thought processes", and thus we have the concepts of "extroversion" and "introversion".
Strength Valued Unvalued4 Ni Ti
3 Te Ne
2 Fi Si
1 Se Fe
Strength Valued Unvalued4 Ne Te
3 Ti Ni
2 Fe Se
1 Si Fi
*almost gets knocked down as he enters topic by the DBZ-ish shockwaves unleashed by the clashes of minds*Can be construed as model B -Ni, valued by alpha&beta.This is why I hate being an outcast. Unfortunately, I think "being an outcast" has something to do with being male and being an Fi-ego.
Being an outcast (or "unique" or w/e) has been defined as being part of model B's -Ni in old posts. +Ni limits itself to more mainstream, traditional, conventional things.
anndelise was right. I give up. woof, I still think you're ILE, but I'm done theorizing about this stuff. someone ban me or delete my account, please.
Olga has some excellent examples in laymans terms of how explicit and implict works and fields vs objects.
I forgot them, because I'm lazy. Maybe I'll remember them next week. But it was an excellent discussion.
I'm not sure what I'd type woof as. I've never really had my own opinion on that matter so as far as ILE v SEE is concerned, I really couldn't say. Concerning the rest of his (Chesney's) typing list, I think a lot of his typings are more worthwhile than the self typings of the users on that list.
Anyone who's had a conversation with me about the types of this forum's members already knows that I have 'odd ball' opinions on the matter. Not wanting to get into specifics of who exactly I think is mistyped or why, my reactions to his list were three.
"Spot on typing"
"Very close typing, base/creative/quadra is correct.
"I have no opinion on this user and so I can't gauge my reaction to whether or not his typing of them is correct."
So, on the users I've actually considered types for, I'd say Chesney isn't doing too bad at all.
Am I really incorrect?
I wonder what Johammadezus/Chris Clearly/Kenneth Chesney types me in his typology system?
Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx