information elements

[Joy]

If we translate the information elements as the following...

external = the big picture
internal = the specifics
dynamics = events
statics = states
objects = things unrelated to you
fields = things as they relate to you

then:

Ne = internal statics of objects = seeing the specifics of the state of things unrelated to you
Se = external statics of objects = seeing the big picture of the state of things unrelated to you
Te = external dynamics of objects = seeing the big picture of events unrelated to you
Fe = internal dynamics of objects = seeing the specifics of events unrelated to you
Ni = internal dynamics of fields = seeing the specifics of events as they relate to you
Si = external dynamics of fields = seeing the big picture of events as they relate to you
Ti = external statics of fields = seeing the big picture of the state of things as they relate to you
Fi = internal statics of fields = seeing the specifics of the state of things as they relate to you

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Joy]

Ni and Si deal with continuous relationships and interdependencies;
Fi and Ti deal with discrete relationships and interdependencies

any time you are comparing two objects, or focusing on how one object relates to another object, you are Xi-ing. why? because in the process of comparing, you have to mention both objects. In the process of relating objects, you have to mention both objects.
This fits in with the definition of 'field'.

So, field should be "how things relate" not just "how they relate to you"

I'm not so sure about that.

objects and fields in human perception

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

[Joy]

Though a Fi type could have an understanding of the relationships between others (or at least think they do lol) based on empathy.

[Joy]

er, nm for now... I think you're right in way

[Joy]

objects are detached and fields are connected

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[anndelise]

Ni and Si deal with continuous relationships and interdependencies;
Fi and Ti deal with discrete relationships and interdependencies

any time you are comparing two objects, or focusing on how one object relates to another object, you are Xi-ing. why? because in the process of comparing, you have to mention both objects. In the process of relating objects, you have to mention both objects.
This fits in with the definition of 'field'.

So, field should be "how things relate" not just "how they relate to you"

in my observations, in my experience, and thus in my opinion, "you" do not necessarily need to be one of the objects being related

Diana, Joy, do you believe that people are capable of relating one object to another, or one set of objects to another set without relating those objects to themselves?

if people are capable of doing this, then the information elements are missing an important element of human experience and human abilities.
if people are incapable of doing this, then i'll concede being erred in my understandings and observations.
But someone will have to explain the following to me....

one of the common discriptions of Fi is "who likes/dislikes whom", "who's involved with whom"
in other words, how person X is related to person Y
I ask you, where is the relating it to myself aspect of "who likes/dislikes who" and/or "who's involved with whom"?

If I'm asking you what do you like? what are you attracted to? What do you dislike about this?
By asking these questions, I'm trying to find out how YOU relate to X or how YOU and X are related. Where is the "relates to me" aspect of that?

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[anndelise]

If we translate the information elements as the following...

external = the big picture

I disagree with your "big picture" idea...
The following is a response I made in another thread regarding "seeing the big picture"
(bolded emphasis within snp7901's post is mine)

i only skimmed so maybe someone already brought this up... but what if dynamic data is presented in static form? say someone has already measured and quantified some temporal variables and puts them in a time series. this time series can be looked at statically with graphs, statistically analysis: time is abstractly represented across space here. then fitting a model to that data seems to be a static exercise, even though the model might imply temporal predictions and strategies.

if that exercise is static, then can't static thinking deal with very big trends sometimes, rather than just formal-logic "details?" joy's comments prompted this post of mine, when she associated Te with the "big picture." that doesn't seem to add up. i'm not suggesting Te+Ni doesn't ever deal with the big picture. but given something like the above i don't think the ways we can approach the big picture are exclusively dynamic. additionally couldn't Te sometimes deal with small details like the "algorithms" of everyday administration and routine?

or maybe joy and i are just using "big picture" in different contexts: the big picture of our individual temporal lives does seem to be by definition more dynamic, but my point was that isn’t the only way of seeing the big picture of the organization you are living in.

I'm not sure if this will answer the middle first question or not (or maybe just add to confusion)
a static type is capable of building up a concept/object by combining discrete relationships (fields)
a static type is capable of breaking down a concept/object by pulling out discrete relationships (fields)
a dynamic type is capable of building up a...(i don't know what term should be here...system?) by combining discrete concepts/objects
a dynamic type is capable of breaking down a (system?) by pulling out discrete concepts/objects

so really, both static and dynamic can claim to see the "big picture"
it just depends on what you mean by "big picture"... the big concept or the big (system?)

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Joy]

Yeah, I think "fields" is more a matter of things being connected or related.

[Joy]

As far as "the big picture" thing, I think it's a matter of the term being used in different contexts. (When I think of external vs. internal I think of seeing the forest vs. seeing the trees, and I think of seeing the forest as seeing "the big picture".) Do you have any other concise suggestions to offer?

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Joy]

How about inner and outer? That's not much different than internal and external.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Joy]

How's this:

external = outer qualities
internal = internal qualities
dynamics = events
statics = states
objects = things in and of themselves
fields = things as they relate other things

Okay, the objects and fields one needs work. I don't want to say "things", and they're too wordy.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[anndelise]

fyi
in other threads there's been a suggestion that
external = defined; internal = not well-defined
external = explicit; internal = implicit (this is my understanding, though i'll use defined/not well defined for those who prefer that one)

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[anndelise]

i've always said i had fuzzy logic
(and then it turned out there was something called "fuzzy logic"...which doesn't quite fit )

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Joy]

hmmm this is beginning to seem like it wasn't a good idea

how about... internal, external, static, dynamic, objects, and fields?

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Joy]

yeah, that sounds good

[Creepy-bg]

Okay, how about this:

Ne = internal statics of objects = seeing an object's implied state = (potential) Seeing an object's potential.
Se = external statics of objects = seeing an object's defined state = Seeing what an object is.
Te = external dynamics of objects = seeing an object's defined path = Seeing where an object is going??
Fe = internal dynamics of objects = seeing an object's implied path = Seeing where an object could go.
.

(added extra "=" for evaluation purposes)

blablabla = blabla = bla = good!

Ni = internal dynamics of fields = seeing the implied connections in a path.
Si = external dynamics of fields = seeing the defined connections in a path.
Ti = external statics of fields = seeing the defined point of connections.
Fi = internal statics of fields = seeing the implied point of connections.

blablabla = blabla = bla = missing???

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Rick]

I think there are two conflicting approaches to "defining" the information aspects here.

"Internal dynamics of fields" used to mean something to me, but it no longer does. It has no real-life application whatsoever. How do you look at a situation and say, "wow, I just felt some internal dynamics of fields!"

In other words, there are better, more useful definitions that are not so abstracted from reality. I think we were quite successful at our seminar at separating and recognizing information aspects without resorting to any abstract definitions. Each aspect had a "feel" and engaged a certain state of mind. The extraverted ones were all different from the introverted ones in the same way.

When we were focusing on ethics, the attention was on feelings, sentiments, and the social world around us. Logic required a dispassionate focus on nonanimate objects (both real objects and thought objects). Intuition involved seeing something that wasn't there (working with an image of something). Sensing involved evoking sensations and manipulating (moving around) objects. Extraverted aspects were about things outside of us and had a somewhat higher energy state, while introverted aspects were about things "within" that did not require adding additional objects to make sense of, but needed to be examined within, using our own attitudes or perception.

In my opinion, this approach is more straightforward and has much more potential for understanding actual behavior and interaction, and for analyzing real-life information signals themselves.

[machintruc]

Even main socionists have contradictory opinions about this. For example :

Gulenko said :

Article 1
Article 2
Article 3
Article 4

I / E = passive / active
SN / TF = continuous-integral / discrete-fractional
ST / NF = explicit / implicit
SF / NT = concrete / abstract
ELIS / PRFT = goal-setting / executive
ELFT / PRIS = engine / inertia

Augusta said :

= state
= time
= distance
= attraction
= form
= structure
= action
= motive

[Rick]

Even main socionists have contradictory opinions about this. For example :

Gulenko said :

Article 1
Article 2
Article 3
Article 4

I / E = passive / active
SN / TF = continuous-integral / discrete-fractional
ST / NF = explicit / implicit
SF / NT = concrete / abstract
ELIS / PRFT = goal-setting / executive
ELFT / PRIS = engine / inertia

Augusta said :

= state
= time
= distance
= attraction
= form
= structure
= action
= motive

Some of these may be good for theoretical work in socionics, but... they are not good for practical application.

Each of Augusta's short definitions requires lengthy interpretation. For instance, is not structure in the sense. Then what is it? Perhaps an image of something that reveals a pattern or hidden structure. But then what about ? Shouldn't be something related to ? The brief one-word definitions here don't reflect that relationship at all. = time is a horrible working definition and leads to ridiculous misinterpretations. What is meant by "distance"? If you study what she wrote, it may make sense, but the word "distance" is worthless as a one-word definition.

To apply socionics to people, we have to move away from these seemingly elegant definitions, which work only when discussing abstractions.

[Creepy-bg]

To apply socionics to people, we have to move away from these seemingly elegant definitions, which work only when discussing abstractions.

I agree and also think this is part of why only a certain type of people tend to come here... college age psuedo-intellectuals (not everybody, but there is alot of it about). I think if this stuff could be explained in everyday terms and not some bullshit philosophical-psychological mumbo jumbo the community would be able to start growing beyond a big N and T circle jerk.

(no offense to those who are offended by what I say )

[Rick]

Yeah. But there are already quite a few other types here as well, and our seminar was not at all dominated by NT types.

Imagine you are with some people and ask them to display some . What would you say? How would you explain the task?

" is attraction/repulsion. I'd like you all to display some of that."
- or -
"Please show some internal statics of fields." ???

I can only imagine the response you would get. My point is not that these definitions are incorrect, but that they have no real-life application.

[Creepy-bg]

as it is I've never been able to coherently explain this stuff to anyone else... I understand it (I think) but it was learned through a process of osmosis and not something I can really express easily to others. could just be my own defect though

[Creepy-bg]

this just came to me... I wonder if I'd be able to communicate it on acid to somebody else who was tripping. LSD does amazing things for direct "mind-to-mind" communication...

I'll have to test that sometimes and report my results

[Rick]

If I had to propose my own short definitions, they would go something like this:

: external, intangible reality
: internal, intangible reality
: external, tangible reality
: internal, tangible reality
: external, inanimate reality
: internal, inanimate reality
: external, animate reality
: internal, animate reality

Where:

external refers to things or interactions that exist outside of the person
internal refers to things or interactions that do not exist outside of the person, but within the person's perception
tangible refers to things or interaction that involve a sensory experience
intangible refers to things or interactions that do not involve a sensory experience, but exist in the imagination
animate refers to things or interactions that involve emotions
inanimate refers to things or interactions that do not involve emotions, but engage the dispassionate thinking mind

[machintruc]

These are possible alternate definitions, which resembles more Gulenko's :

absolute implicit input
relative implicit input
absolute explicit input
relative explicit input
absolute explicit output
relative explicit output
absolute implicit output
relative implicit output

absolute means objective, and relative means subjective.


A definition of "relative" :

Think of a blue ball and a red ball. They are objects (absolute things). They have a field (relative thing) between them, which is their distance of 65 centimeters. If we destroy the blue ball, the field between them will disappear, because the red ball can't have a distance between it and the blue ball. The blue ball can't have fields, because it doesn't exist anymore.

[Creepy-bg]

Rick's is clearer to me... Diana's the clearest because it uses everyday no-nonsense words and ideas