Should be pretty easy to tell the difference, right?
= external statics of objects
= external dynamics of objects
Te vs. Se
Should be pretty easy to tell the difference, right?
Re: Te vs. Se
Unfortunately, not always.Originally Posted by Joy
Should be pretty easy to tell the difference, right?
Dynamic and Static people tend to argue a lot over whether something should be looked at as a static object, or a dynamic object. So an Se person would listen to the Te person talking about the object's external qualities as if they were dynamic qualities, and kinda go..."pfft, that's not what's important here"....and same thing with the Te hearing the Se describe the object's external qualities as if they were static qualities.
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
I'm having a hard time seeing how Te isn't just Se plus movement
static is a photo
dynamic is a video
If you have a pebble in your hand, and are turning it around, looking at it from all sorts of angles, getting lots of impressions of it as it is in place.... and then you skip that pebble across the pond...are you still capable of seeing all the intricate details of that object? or are you too busy looking at it's movements and how many times it skips, and how far the skips are, and how many ripples appear, and and and.....?
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
soooo Te is Se plus movement and minus detail?
*shrugs*
*mumbles* idunno
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
so how does Te look different than Se when you're watching someone use it?
this is incorrrect. a biased static viewpoint of dynamicism is that if you stop the video you can break it down into an infinite number of frames and from those frames you can also construct the video. the video would be inferior to the frames as it is a derivative of them and because the "flow" of the video would obscure the pinpoint precision of the frames by blurring them together at too great a rate to be processable.
Um, well...I personally would have to go with what types of information the person is talking about as they are talking about it. Even better is when they are talking about something we both are looking at.
I guess in terms of determining Se vs Te, then the only differences between them are the static vs dynamic.
So like, simplified, an EOS is describing the color, shape, form, angles maybe, etc (I don't attend to EOS info very much...though I did once sit in the car and kept stopping myself from looking into the vehicles, and stopped myself from thinking about why those people are standing on that corner, etc...and just paid attention to the colors/shapes/forms of what my eyes saw.....I got a budding headache within less than a minute...and a killer one that lasted for days within 3 minutes...and stopped before the three minutes were up.)
EOD would be describing the motion....like the person's movements, the pebble's skipping, (I know that there is more to it than just those examples...i'm just not yet capable of putting it into my own words yet)etc. This information is easier for me, personally to attend to. Though in all honesty, if I am going to be attending to the motions of an object, I'd rather tend how that motion relates to the motions of other objects (EFD; or EOD with IFS) which is like...seeing that car's movement and how it relates to the other car's movement, and what is likely to happen if one of them doesn't change course ..... or walking in the mall and guiding my oblivious friend through the people'd obstacle course from one store to another. (I'm not yet sure if this is EFD or if it's EOD with IFS)
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
lol pedro... do you really want to get into the different values of functions?
thanks ann...
I've got a grasp on the concept, I'm just trying to figure out what it would look like. How would one differentiate between a Se type and a Te type based on what they say and do?
(lol you're looking at the internal aspects and I'm looking at the external... )
great mental image!this is incorrrect. a biased static viewpoint of dynamicism is that if you stop the video you can break it down into an infinite number of frames and from those frames you can also construct the video. the video would be inferior to the frames as it is a derivative of them and because the "flow" of the video would obscure the pinpoint precision of the frames by blurring them together at too great a rate to be processable.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
As I said to Slava, I doubt the worthiness of this distinction. There's no such a thing as an external without the internal.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
there is not such thing as N without S or T without F? while this is true, why even learn about socionics if this is your attitude?
You're missing the point. The comparisons you're making are not in line with mine.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
