Socionics
8.3. Object-oriented and relation-oriented elements
To explain the division into object-oriented and relation-oriented elements, I will use the following quote:
The next step will be to distinguish the division into objects and relations. This refers to whether the information is organized around individual focus points (creating some kind of object, things seen in a sense as a whole) or whether they are a connection between various focus points (they determine the type of dependence between them, relations connecting them). Again, it is worthwhile noticing that this division is more about how the information is received and processed, and less about its characteristics independent from the observer. So, if we “realize” a given type of information without referring to others, we are dealing with the object, whereas in a situation in which are realize these references, and we operate on them—with relation. For example, the information “This apple is red” is information about the object, while the information “Both apples have the same color” says about the relation. The information “This apple has the same color as that apple” is already troublesome—its classification depends on whether we want to pay attention to the apple color (information about the object) or the similarity of colors between them (relation).
Based on the above example, we can also see that relations are a more economical way to store information—based on the one relation, we are able to conclude the color of two apples. Nevertheless, information about objects is easier to relate to the outside world, you can use them much faster. It becomes more and more visible as the number of relations we operate increases. For example, an unambiguous determination of the apple color could require three conditions: “This apple has the same color as that apple”, “That apple is not red”, We only have red and yellow apples”.
In Socionics, we often use the concept of energy (psychic energy). We say that the relation-oriented approach promotes its saving, while object-oriented view is associated with its more intense spending. By analogy with the concepts of introversion and extraversion introduced by Jung, relation-oriented elements are called introtic, and object-oriented—extratic.
The division into object-oriented and relation-oriented in Socionics shows the diagram below.
To adjust the above object-oriented and relation-oriented elements to the Mandala of Characters, I appropriately rearrange the above information elements.
Now let us apply object-oriented and relation-oriented elements to the Mandala of Characters.
In the diagram above, we can see where the object-oriented elements are and where are the relation-oriented elements? Besides, I have also distinguished:
- pole of object-oriented (Extratic) elements,
- pole of relation-oriented (Introtic) elements.
In this way, I indicate places:
— where there are the most object-oriented (Extratic) elements,
— and where there are the most relation-oriented (Introtic) elements.
Specifically, we have two object-oriented elements side by side in the upper left corner. And in the lower right corner, we have two relation-oriented elements next to each other.
Let me remind that the words “Extratic” and “Introtic” are derived from Jung’s concepts “Extraverted” and “Introverted”. In Jung’s theory, Extraversion and Introversion are adaptive-defensive mechanisms or general attitudes. In Socionics, as I mentioned above:
— “Extratism” it is the equivalent of object-oriented information elements”,
— “Introtism” it is the equivalent of relation-oriented information elements”.
The words “Extratic” and “Introtic” usually are not used in English publications about Socionics. Instead, are used Jung’s terms “Extraversion”, and “Introversion”. I have here a dilemma, whether to follow others who are writing about Socionics in English. Finally, I decided to use terms which are used in some Polish publications, that is “Extratic” and “Introtic” (in Polish“ekstratyczny” and “introtyczny”).
To use the terms “Extratic” and “Introtic” makes sense for me, because, as we can see above, they are equivalent of object-oriented and relation-oriented information elements.
So, it is not the same as Extraversion and Introversion in Jung’s understanding (that is, adaptive-defensive mechanisms).
Besides, in English publication are not used “object-oriented” and “relation-oriented” elements (in Polish “obiektowe” and “relacyjne” elements). Instead, in English often they are described as Extraverted and Introverted elements. For me, however, the terms “object-oriented” and “relation-oriented” are very valuable. It is because these terms are giving us another point of view on Extraversion and Introversion.
Actually “object-oriented” and “relation-oriented” it is closer to Jung’s ideas. Among others, Jung pointed out that Extraversion is focused on “object”, and Introversion is focused on “subject”.
Coming back to the above quote, in my opinion, the following comparison is valuable:
- Extraversion with the object-oriented elements. That is, with “information organized around individual focus points (creating some kind of object, things seen in a sense as a whole)”,
- and Introversion with relation-oriented elements. That is, information which are “a connection between various focus points (they determine the type of dependence between them, relations connecting them)”.
The above comparison can therefore be a valuable complement to Mandala of Characters, because:
- object-oriented information elements (or Extratic elements) will mainly concern the types of Hot Fire and Hot Air.
- relation-oriented information elements (or Introtic elements) will mainly concern the types of Cool Water and Cool Earth.
CC0 1.0 Universal
To other texts and images that I used as quotes, additional terms may apply.