Extraversion/introversion - Keirsey vs. Jung

[Exodus]

What exactly do we mean by the external world, though?

I think that description is inaccurate. ILI and IEI are focused on plans for the future and "speculative futurism", not ILE and IEE.

Ni leadings can be, though they are still a lot more detached from reality and more inside their imaginations than Ne leadings.

Isaac Arthur is an example of an ILI that thinks about technically possible (though extremely far-fetched) technologies.

Reinin's definition of intuition does not make much sense IMO.

What do you mean by "affect you subjectively"?

Perhaps subjective isn't the right word. Si has to do with affecting something physically or disturbing/improving its condition or equilibrium. But generally speaking it is about the relationship between things as Augusta says.

Aren't all our experiences subjective?

That's not really the point. Not all information is subjective. Here's an example:

That's a huge mountain (Se)
These shoes are hurting my feet (Si)

That being said, there are examples of Si information that are less subjective (more typically Si with Te).

[Petter]

Ni leadings can be, though they are still a lot more detached from reality and more inside their imaginations than Ne leadings.
Isaac Arthur is an example of an ILI that thinks about technically possible (though extremely far-fetched) technologies.

Isaac: "We continue our look at hypothetical alien civilizations". Yes, this is typical Ni thinking, so it is in a sense more detached from reality. Ni visualizes a future scenario. But Ne is more detached from reality in another sense, since its ideas/concepts are radical and new.

My point is that Ni and Ne are not the subjective and objective versions of the same type of thinking. They are completely different.

Reinin's definition of intuition does not make much sense IMO.

I agree with you.

Perhaps subjective isn't the right word. Si has to do with affecting something physically or disturbing/improving its condition or equilibrium. But generally speaking it is about the relationship between things as Augusta says.

Aushra and other socionists have tried to define Jung's subjective introverted functions: external dynamics of fields (Si) etc. I don't think it works. Is a 'light and instantaneous touch on your arm' dynamic?

That's not really the point. Not all information is subjective. Here's an example:

Are you saying that our experiences are not (themselves) information?

That's a huge mountain (Se)

These shoes are hurting my feet (Si)

Okay, so Se correponds to external statics of objects. Again, it doesn't work! Which function perceives motion (a football flying through the air etc.) according to these definitions?

[Exodus]

Aushra and other socionists have tried to define Jung's subjective introverted functions: external dynamics of fields (Si) etc. I don't think it works. Is a 'light and instantaneous touch on your arm' dynamic?

Yes, in the sense that it is an experience flowing into your physical body.

Augusta's definitions of static/dynamic and object/field aren't totally satisfactory but I do believe there is some truth to them.

Are you saying that our experiences are not (themselves) information?

I'm not sure what your point is.

Okay, so Se correponds to external statics of objects. Again, it doesn't work! Which function perceives motion (a football flying through the air etc.) according to these definitions?

Why doesn't it work? The information that a football is flying through the air is objective information about the physical world, hence Se. The information that the football hurt your head by hitting it is part of your subjective experience of the physical world, hence Si. I think you're reading too much into it. Se and Si are both subjective faculties but that doesn't mean that their information is equally subjective.

[Petter]

Yes, in the sense that it is an experience flowing into your physical body.
Augusta's definitions of static/dynamic and object/field aren't totally satisfactory but I do believe there is some truth to them.

"...there is some truth to them".

That is far from satisfactory. We get completely distorted descriptions of the types because of that.

I'm not sure what your point is.

You italicized 'information'. What did you mean?

Why doesn't it work? The information that a football is flying through the air is objective information about the physical world, hence Se. The information that the football hurt your head by hitting it is part of your subjective experience of the physical world, hence Si. I think you're reading too much into it. Se and Si are both subjective faculties but that doesn't mean that their information is equally subjective.

Se corresponds to external statics of objects in mainstream Socionics (SSS definitions are different as you probably know). A football flying through the air is about "objective" information, yes. So far so good. But it is also about dynamic information. That is why it doesn't work.

SRSI thinks action/movement is processed by Te, which is true. But we need a perceiving function that processes action/movement as well.

---------

Furthermore, are these two definitions really equal? For example, there are two bananas in front of you, and you compare their sizes and shapes. Is that comparison about objective or subjective information?

"Objects: Things that can be observed, studied, and discussed apart from the subject (observer)

Fields: Things that are perceived through the subject by means of feelings and cannot be studied apart from the subject"

"Information aspects about objects are called extraverted.
Information aspects about relationships are called introverted."