msk,
maybe you could copy your question and start a thread with it so that Ni people who aren't particularly interested in Ti vs Te would be more likely to read it and maybe answer it?
msk,
maybe you could copy your question and start a thread with it so that Ni people who aren't particularly interested in Ti vs Te would be more likely to read it and maybe answer it?
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
snp7901,
I'll be honest, I didn't understand your post before this, and i don't understand most of this one....sorry, nothing to do with your writing or anything like that. But I'll comment on parts I did understand.
yepOriginally Posted by snp7901
elsewhere the perceiving functions have been defined as "continual", "continuous", "integrity"...pretty much the idea is of cohesiveness, fitting in together, something like that. the whole, the big picture
the judging functions have been defined as "discretion", "divisibility", "discrete"...pretty much the idea of individual and/or separated units, the parts...or something like that
the static types have continual objects with discrete fields
the dynamic types have discrete objects with continual fields
I didn't quite understand this (and it references parts of your previous post which I didn't understand...again, through no fault of your own).-my "time series" data, once it's been measured and recorded, doesn't actually change during the time you spend analyzing it. so that seems like an object given what's been said of those. and this was my example of "static data."
-meanwhile joy's "videotape" form of knowledge seems in motion as you perceive it. so this seems like a field. it's what i had in mind when i said "dynamic data"
The closest thing I can think of that might be aligned with the last part...about the videotape...is that in previous attempts a number of us have attempted to describe static as being like individual snapshots while dynamic is more like video. I've been coming to an idea that the video is slightly misleading, in that it suggests something on the linear side (as does restricting Ni to "time"). In reality, it wouldn't necessarily be linear nor sequential, it could be diverging as well.
admittedly, I wasn't too keen on using "system" to fill in the blank, but my vocabulary is limited and I just needed something to help point any readers into a direction of what I mean. Flow could be acceptable, but it'd be easy to misinterpret that as linear or sequential as well.i like what you said in your next post, except maybe the term "system" isn’t the best way to fill in that blank. like joy's word use i think that portrays dynamics and their "objects" or "concepts" too restrictively. can't concepts be systems, like of several sub-concepts? maxwell's electromagnetism can be thought of as one unchanging object or concept, but it's also a "system" of several equations.
in expat's descriptions of gamma Ni, i think he used terms like "river" or "flow" to describe continuous fields. maybe a dynamic's relationship with "systems" is expressed by easily imaging how the system once practiced will change or progress? not to say Te can only apply systems. sometimes the purpose of one system is to create another (so maybe this is where Te and Ti talents overlap?)
as for concepts being systems as well...
this is one area where there is misunderstanding of the term "object" (as opposed to "field). concepts are objects, people are objects, ideas are objects, etc. so yes, a system could be an object too.
one way of checking if someone is referring to a system as an object or a field is if they are treating the system as some thing, or are focusing on the relationships brought together as .....ugh, a whole (my static viewpoint is showing through, I can't help it).
I don't quite get the last part of the quote, either. (again due to my own limitations and nothing to do with what/how you wrote)
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
I understand what you are sayingis anybody else totally lost in these discussions? It's been what, 2 years? and this sort of thing still sounds like "Blablablabla.. blablablababla? blabla
! blaaaaaa.... blablabla bla
" to me
Socionics: XNFx
MBTI: INFJ
Although it might be a bit painful, I wonder if one of the INFps could also express how they see their polr and how it affects them in a more practical real life way.
Socionics: XNFx
MBTI: INFJ
that would be nice... I find I grasp this stuff imediately when somebody explains it with metaphors and analogies instead of technical/philosophical jargon. When it gets all wordy with the objects/fields/dymamics/etc... stuff my mind just blanks out. (it's interresting though that I sort of do the same thing with my friends, try to explain things with technical words but then resort to the metaphors and analogies when they look at me like. usually then they'll actually grasp what I'm saying)
if/then statements are only one type of relationship objects/concepts/etc can have with each other
so fields aren't consequences, but consequences can be fields
(kind of like birds aren't ducks, but ducks are birds)
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
(My head hurts with all this continuous + discrete stuff - I think I get the gist of it thoughum..i dunno about that...
you can have continuous fields (Ni; Si) or discrete fields (Ti; Fi)
you can have continuous objects (Ne; Se) or discrete objects (Te; Fe)
i don't kow how infinite/local and inert/volatile fit in with this
"it's kind of like trying to explain the concept of time to children without using objects. "
time is changes that occur relative to something else, so yes, in order to explain the concept of time, you have to use objects.
Time is an abstract concept (as opposed to requiring involvement);
Time requires the use of fields (changes that occur relative to an object);
Time is generally considered continuous (as opposed to discrete);
Ni has been defined as abstract continuous fields
this is why Ni and Time are attributed to each other.
(but Ni isn't limited to focusing on time, time is just one example of Ni)
But break up that time into discrete changes that occurred relevant to something else, and you've moving into the realm of Ti/Fi.
Try to define those discrete changes and you've moved into Ti.
so really...anytime we try to define Ni using worded examples, we're pretty much forced into Ti-ing it.
I think dynamic functions such as Si and Ni see objects as inconsequential, they see them as temporary with minor changes over time - the environment is more versatile (and out of their control?), and they picture the same object (with changes) in many different time states. So time + an object's environment to them is the means by which objects change. Static types see themselves as the means by which objects change - it is the envionment which is inconsequential (the progress of time does not matter so much to them).
Dynamic types see time + the environment as an important factor in change, the objects are merely actors destined to end up a certain way.
Static types see time + environment as insignificant, objects are made useful in the current moment.
It's ok, I don't get it either. Like Bionicgoat, I find these theoretical discussions largely pointless.
BTW I like the optical illusion.
I'd probably get it if I actually put forth the time and effort to read it all, but once a thread goes too far off the Ti end I lose interest.
.
It is a path - it sees change over time e.g. object A becomes object B then object C as it changes over time, but Ni ego types don't see it like this - instead the object remains as 'object A' for the whole duration, regardless of changes - they don't call the object by a different name as it changes (they have an end goal in sight of what the object should be like):
object A -------TIME--------> object A'
While Statics see things as being of the current moment - each object is what they make of it at that time.
Hmm, well I'll give it a shot, here is how I understandI understand what you are sayingis anybody else totally lost in these discussions? It's been what, 2 years? and this sort of thing still sounds like "Blablablabla.. blabla
Imagine that you are watching television or a theater performance or a video game or even an EKG monitor. What is happening, though you may not be aware of it, is a constant flow of new information. Every new moment in time brings a new development but yet it is a continuation of the last moment, and it is of the moment before it and so on. Simply put, the plot thickens. And now as you watch the action unfold you are aware of the plot and slowly as you get into the action the plot takes first place, you're not just looking at the pictures, the actors and so on anymore, you start observing the plot "Oh no! Jimmy cheated on Marisa!". In the end all that you are left form the experience is an awareness of the plot and everything else is subordinate to the plot "It's an epic tale of friendship and betrayal in the little town of whatever some time ago". Now imagine that this plot is unfolding every day of your life right in front of your eyes.
Also notable mentioning is that it is merely an observant, it uses the rules that govern the relationships between the objects it observes but does not study them. And really when your watch your TV show you don't care how the television works, how the picture is formed and explanation of why the things work, you just want to see your show.
Also notable mentioning is that it doesn't perceive the internal dynamics of the objects it observes, the "internal" plot. How should it know if the actors have gas, are drowsy and so on if they don't show it externally? It can only observe what's on screen, is visible. Also this is why for exampleas "drama" because
Bad
Hmm, I did something like that a while agoAlthough it might be a bit painful
http://the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5268
try to combine that with the above description.
agreed. the thread is completely senseless.
interesting how you've managed to talk about Te in a way which, i think, is so antithetical to Te itself.
I think its like ann was saying, once you start describing things specifically, you can't really not Ti it. The way to describe something dynamic wouldn't be description of Te as an object.
EDIT: i see Niffweed beat me to the punch.
exactly.
personally, i find this thread, and these sorts of discussions to be extremely confusing. by "these sorts of discussions" i mean the sorts of threads that keep being made with lists like:
= dynamic intangibles of fields
= static tangibles of objects
= static tangibles of fields
etc.
these sorts of lists just don't make any sense to me. theoretically, they're sensible enough, but it's not at all obvious where the names come from or what they mean, and at face value it's extremely difficult to figure out what all of this means. in the end, none of this actually means anything; this kind of definition doesn't actually lead anywhere.
i notice that all of these discussions are highly populated with Ne types and very little else.
I dunno about all of this tangible and intangible stuff, but the information elements make sense to me. However, they make sense in an abstract way that's difficult to precisely pin down in words.exactly.
personally, i find this thread, and these sorts of discussions to be extremely confusing. by "these sorts of discussions" i mean the sorts of threads that keep being made with lists like:
etc.
these sorts of lists just don't make any sense to me. theoretically, they're sensible enough, but it's not at all obvious where the names come from or what they mean, and at face value it's extremely difficult to figure out what all of this means. in the end, none of this actually means anything; this kind of definition doesn't actually lead anywhere.
According to this, Te would be seeing the big picture of events that are outside of oneself. Or perhaps... detachedly seeing of big picture of events. (Granted, "events" isn't a true synonym for "dynamics". That said... ) I suppose Ni would then be the specifics/details of events as they relate to you.If you look at the information elements, Te is the external dynamics of objects. External pretty much means "big picture". Dynamics vs. Statics has been compared to a video clip vs. a photo (the photo allowing one to see more of the details and the video allowing one to see events). As for Objects vs. Fields:
hmmmmm.....
don't pay too much attention to my diction; i just made up some plausible sounding words. i don't really understand what any of it means well enough to make a correct model.
.
That sounds like a static view of it.
Te also seems to be related to language (unless that's more of a type specific thing, such as being more specific to Te dominants for example). Not languages themselves, but premises, definitions, semantics, etc. It's about efficient communication, and impatience with those who can't (or won't) do it. This doesn't mean that Te types can't be talkative or that it's always easy for them to communicate effectively, in fact, sometimes it's the just opposite because of the aforementioned impatience. The main idea here is that Te types try to make sure that everyone's talking about the same thing because miscommunication resulting from poorly defined premises or meanings of words is frustrating and makes the conversation (or at least the parts where people had to needlessly, in their eyes, explain their wording and meanings over and over again) seem pointless. As stated before, Te is about what works. It's about what works, what doesn't work, and how something could be working better.
Te isn't nearly the universal language you seem to make it out to be... In fact it's sort of funny the way you describe it. If you care about what works so much when it comes to language you'd think you'd be able to grasp that Te doesn't work for everybody. There's a certain self centered aspect to your last post as if anybody who doesn't speak your language is deficient or something when the problem and miscommunication is as much on your end as the other.
A very good point, and definitely true. As I have tried to point out many times the main focus is on the same thing, that is, the referent. As long as we know that we are talking about the same referent, we don't have to quarrel so much about exactly which definition is the correct one to use, or which exact language expression is the most accurate in order to pinpoint that we have the same thing in mind. We can use whatever language expression, or preliminary definition (even vague ones) that works, that is, makes it possible for us to communicate effectively.
Te isn't nearly the universal language you seem to make it out to be...
As I said in my post, sometimes communication problems arise as a result of a tendency to be (what some people would consider) too concise at times. Peter once described it as leaving things out because of assuming that someone else understands the details and reasoning behind the statement. I've heard a few people refer to some Te types as skipping steps. If A leads to B which leads to C which leads to D which leads to E, they may communicate it as "E, A, C" or "A, B, D", etc. Teachers might complain about them not showing their work. For example, an Algebra teacher may ask to speak with a student, and then go over the student's answers, asking how the student came up with some of the answers because there were steps missing. "I just knew it" or "I did it in my head" aren't always acceptable answers. On occasion the student may even solve the problem in a different way that what was taught because it seems more efficient.
Some people value Te/Fi and some value Ti/Fe. One of the central ideas in socionics is that one isn't better than the other, they're just different.If you care about what works so much when it comes to language you'd think you'd be able to grasp that Te doesn't work for everybody. There's a certain self centered aspect to your last post as if anybody who doesn't speak your language is deficient or something when the problem and miscommunication is as much on your end as the other.
that was my point
According to this, surely a Te type who's "trying to make sure that everyone's talking about the same thing" wouldn't bitch at a person who asks them what they meant by [insert term]. Especially if that supposed Te person hadn't defined/explained the term(s) prior to the asking for it.
To bitch at them seems to show that they're not really all that interested in "making sure that everyone's talking about the same thing".
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
According to this, surely a Te type who's "trying to make sure that everyone's talking about the same thing" wouldn't bitch at a person who asks them what they meant by [insert term]. Especially if that supposed Te person hadn't defined/explained the term(s) prior to the asking for it.
To bitch at them seems to show that they're not really all that interested in "making sure that everyone's talking about the same thing".
as an identified Te type, i can say i am freakin' thrilled when people ask me what i meant X. it's better than just sitting there and freestyling and acting like you know what you're talking about when you have no idea.
6w5 sx
model Φ: -+0
sloan - rcuei
One of the reasons why I like INTps is because when I ask them what they meant by something, or what someone else meant by something, they're willing to explain it to me. And usually do so in a way I can easily comprehend.According to this, surely a Te type who's "trying to make sure that everyone's talking about the same thing" wouldn't bitch at a person who asks them what they meant by [insert term]. Especially if that supposed Te person hadn't defined/explained the term(s) prior to the asking for it.
To bitch at them seems to show that they're not really all that interested in "making sure that everyone's talking about the same thing".
as an identified Te type, i can say i am freakin' thrilled when people ask me what i meant X. it's better than just sitting there and freestyling and acting like you know what you're talking about when you have no idea.
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
Do you think that Jonathan and XoX are INTps -- or at least one of them?
lol there goes this thread...
I've already stated elsewhere what I perceive regarding XoX. And it's not INTp.Do you think that Jonathan and XoX are INTps -- or at least one of them?
As for Jonathon, I do believe that Jonathon is much clearer for me to read than XoX.
Jonathon does seem willing to take the time to try to explain what he meant when he says something.
His reinterpretations don't change/alter even half as much as XoX's. (hardly much at all I think)
I can more easily see Jonathon as an INTp than XoX.
But this is not to say that I see Jonathon as an INTp.
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
i dont think this is exclusive to Te at all.A very good point, and definitely true. As I have tried to point out many times the main focus is on the same thing, that is, the referent. As long as we know that we are talking about the same referent, we don't have to quarrel so much about exactly which definition is the correct one to use, or which exact language expression is the most accurate in order to pinpoint that we have the same thing in mind. We can use whatever language expression, or preliminary definition (even vague ones) that works, that is, makes it possible for us to communicate effectively.
Maybe not. But there is a clear difference in behaviour between somei dont think this is exclusive to Te at all.A very good point, and definitely true. As I have tried to point out many times the main focus is on the same thing, that is, the referent. As long as we know that we are talking about the same referent, we don't have to quarrel so much about exactly which definition is the correct one to use, or which exact language expression is the most accurate in order to pinpoint that we have the same thing in mind. We can use whatever language expression, or preliminary definition (even vague ones) that works, that is, makes it possible for us to communicate effectively.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote