New thoughts on Static/Dynamic trait
Scenario: a person walks from one end of a room to the other end.
If that person was a static type, he would be more aware of the images of the room he saw while standing at the two ends of the room.
If that person is a dynamic type, he would be more aware of his movement through the room and the constantly changing image he sees of the room as he walks.
Any thoughts?
static/dynamic isn't clear cut enough to be of any use. The examples you made are as much situational as anything relating to type.
It's not that any type sees the whole world as moving or still; we all know that, by definition, the world is constantly in motion and everything changes eventually. What Stat/Dynamic entails is the perception of "things that change constantly" and "things that exist in states." You can't really put that in a way that would allow a person to tell whether they are Static or Dynamic just by identifying with a description or some such.
I agree, as I have attempted to do.Originally Posted by dee
The problem is that it's just not that simple. A static doesn't see a ball flying through the air in frames; he sees it in fluid motion, just like a dynamic. Nothing about actual concrete physical perception differs between statics and dynamics. And if you're thinking about something like "Do you think like this, or this?" then you're going to be putting entirely too much faith in people's objectivity in observance of their own thought process, which is about as foolish a thing as you could do when you're talking to a bunch of psychology hobbyists
+4 (if I had had the words I would have said something like this
The problem is that it's just not that simple. A static doesn't see a ball flying through the air in frames; he sees it in fluid motion, just like a dynamic. Nothing about actual concrete physical perception differs between statics and dynamics. And if you're thinking about something like "Do you think like this, or this?" then you're going to be putting entirely too much faith in people's objectivity in observance of their own thought process, which is about as foolish a thing as you could do when you're talking to a bunch of psychology hobbyists)
-100+4 (if I had had the words I would have said something like this
The problem is that it's just not that simple. A static doesn't see a ball flying through the air in frames; he sees it in fluid motion, just like a dynamic. Nothing about actual concrete physical perception differs between statics and dynamics. And if you're thinking about something like "Do you think like this, or this?" then you're going to be putting entirely too much faith in people's objectivity in observance of their own thought process, which is about as foolish a thing as you could do when you're talking to a bunch of psychology hobbyists
.
As a metaphor I think this can sort of work, but not literally. If it's just walking from one end of the room to the other, an S person would probably be more likely to notice the images in between, whereas the N person may be lost in their own thoughts and not notice them at all.
------------------------------
Okay, what about this?
Moving from (t[sub:0d4f090ad6]1[/sub:0d4f090ad6], s[sub:0d4f090ad6]1[/sub:0d4f090ad6]) to (t[sub:0d4f090ad6]2[/sub:0d4f090ad6], s[sub:0d4f090ad6]2[/sub:0d4f090ad6]) where t represents a point in time and s represents a state of reality, the dynamic person is more focused on the slope of the line or curve between these two points and how it is changing. So if at t[sub:0d4f090ad6]1[/sub:0d4f090ad6], s=4... and at t[sub:0d4f090ad6]2[/sub:0d4f090ad6], s=9 (and at t[sub:0d4f090ad6]3[/sub:0d4f090ad6], s=16... so on), then the dynamic person is going to think "it's accelerating." If they're an IP, this is no cause for concern and they flow with it, adapt as it does without resisting it. If they're an EJ, they think "oh shit! it's accelerating!" and they'll either want to stop it from doing so, or they'll be compelled to sort of run after it so it won't completely throw them off for instance when they get to t[sub:0d4f090ad6]99[/sub:0d4f090ad6] and find that at s=10,000. In other words, reality is in a constant state of flux to the dynamic person.
The static person (if IJ) would be more like... at t[sub:0d4f090ad6]1[/sub:0d4f090ad6] they'll think, "oh reality is s=4... how comforting... I like this... yay." Then at t[sub:0d4f090ad6]2[/sub:0d4f090ad6] they'll be like, "oh well reality is s=9 now... hmm that's rather different than s=4, but it's still mostly the same." If something dramatic occurs however, like when they get to t[sub:0d4f090ad6]99[/sub:0d4f090ad6] and s=10,000, then they'll be jarred and unsettled... sort of like "what in the hell happened?! I swear it wasn't that long ago that s<100!"
If the static person is EP, then at t[sub:0d4f090ad6]1[/sub:0d4f090ad6] they'll be like "s=4... how droll... I'm bored with this." At t[sub:0d4f090ad6]2[/sub:0d4f090ad6] they'll think "ooh s=9... such a change... this is like really boring... does anything ever change in my life?" In other words the EP person will want to accelerate s, or get it to do something interesting... at t[sub:0d4f090ad6]99[/sub:0d4f090ad6] when s=10,000, they'll be excited and invigorated because finally something is actually happening.
One issue I'm having is "state of reality" isn't defined here. What exactly is an example of a "static state of reality"? The other problem with what I said is that it has a dynamic bias. I said that reality is changing in the way of: at t[sub:0d4f090ad6]1[/sub:0d4f090ad6], s=2; at t[sub:0d4f090ad6]2[/sub:0d4f090ad6], s=9; at t[sub:0d4f090ad6]3[/sub:0d4f090ad6], s=16; ...; at t[sub:0d4f090ad6]n[/sub:0d4f090ad6], s=(t[sub:0d4f090ad6]n+1[/sub:0d4f090ad6])[sup:0d4f090ad6]2[/sup:0d4f090ad6]. So the dynamic person is then "correct" in their perception of reality, where as the static person is oblivious. So my example isn't working either.
I was largely influenced by this thread by Expat in writing this. In fact, I have pretty much said almost the same thing in a different way.
EDIT: I thought I'd add that the interval between t[sub:0d4f090ad6]n[/sub:0d4f090ad6] and t[sub:0d4f090ad6]n+1[/sub:0d4f090ad6] needs to be sufficiently long... in other words t[sub:0d4f090ad6]n+1[/sub:0d4f090ad6] - t[sub:0d4f090ad6]n[/sub:0d4f090ad6] needs to be MUCH greater than, say, a few minutes.
don't minus me buddy... I'll take a shit on the hood of your car-100+4 (if I had had the words I would have said something like this
The problem is that it's just not that simple. A static doesn't see a ball flying through the air in frames; he sees it in fluid motion, just like a dynamic. Nothing about actual concrete physical perception differs between statics and dynamics. And if you're thinking about something like "Do you think like this, or this?" then you're going to be putting entirely too much faith in people's objectivity in observance of their own thought process, which is about as foolish a thing as you could do when you're talking to a bunch of psychology hobbyists
don't minus me buddy... I'll take a shit on the hood of your car-100+4 (if I had had the words I would have said something like this
The problem is that it's just not that simple. A static doesn't see a ball flying through the air in frames; he sees it in fluid motion, just like a dynamic. Nothing about actual concrete physical perception differs between statics and dynamics. And if you're thinking about something like "Do you think like this, or this?" then you're going to be putting entirely too much faith in people's objectivity in observance of their own thought process, which is about as foolish a thing as you could do when you're talking to a bunch of psychology hobbyists
+101
Statics see the world as consisting of different states, or snapshots in time. Dynamics see the world as consisting of processes or events.
but what does that mean?
+ (∞ - 1)
The problem is that it's just not that simple. A static doesn't see a ball flying through the air in frames; he sees it in fluid motion, just like a dynamic. Nothing about actual concrete physical perception differs between statics and dynamics. And if you're thinking about something like "Do you think like this, or this?" then you're going to be putting entirely too much faith in people's objectivity in observance of their own thought process, which is about as foolish a thing as you could do when you're talking to a bunch of psychology hobbyists
Static: That is how things were. This is how things are. This is how things will be.
Dynamic: That led to this which is leading to that.
and the difference is... ?
seriously
....seriously
the idea is that both a gradual succession of events and a continuous one amount to exactly the same thing. lacking in some kind of actual difference in the way that a static and dynamic perception of the world actually differ in terms of the way that they perceive data and the concrete effects of how that manifests as different IM elements, its pretty meaningless to simply define static as one thing and dynamic as another.
i do think that there are some differences between static and dynamic, but i don't really see the basis for suggesting that some IM elements (for example, Ne) are either static or dynamic. i can see where something like Ni might be dynamic and Fi might be static, but until there is some good reason why static elements must inherently exist as IP or EJ elements and vice versa for dynamics, all of these theoretical explanations are worthless.
(this is not to say static/dynamic in and of itself (ie for purposes of better understanding IM elements) is useless, but these theoretical explanations of reinin dichotomies are completely worthless, and i do believe that some of the less common reinin traits are totally arbitrary and pointless, if even true.)
the objects vs the space betweenand the difference is... ?
ILE
those who are easily shocked.....should be shocked more often
what? you lost me completely.the objects vs the space betweenand the difference is... ?
This is a static explanation. You're describing a thing, not an action. Dynamic is about activity, not the state of something. Hmmm... State, stationary, static, station, stasis, status...the objects vs the space betweenand the difference is... ?
ENTj is about what works.
I randomly came up with something today. How about saying that dynamic types see behaviour in a static way?
For a dynamic type state is in flux and they have a blurry and fuzzy notion of it and differences or changes in state can go unnoticed or be disregarded as unimportant. But when it comes to behaviour they can say something like: "Yesterday it behaved like that and now it's behaving like this?! Something changed! Interesting! (or worrisome)" As if that behaviour and this behaviour are clearly separated, distinct. It's easy for dynamic types to compare behaviours because for them it is something sharp.
For a static type on the other hand state is something sharp and clearly visible and behaviour is in flux, fuzzy and blurry. They can easily notice and compare distinct states and find that more important than changes in behaviour.
?
Behavior is more related to Te (behavior is the external dynamics of objects, after all). I think what you're talking about depends on the type and the information aspect.
Behavior has a shitload to do with the internal dynamics of objects, too...not sure if you can put "behavior" under one function.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
I see "dynamics", "behaviour", "dynamic behaviour" as synonyms. You can also talk about the dynamic behaviour of fields for instance as opposed to the state of fields.
I don't understand where Fe gets it's information from, to be honest. I was thinking of posting a topic about it.
"Behavior" is part of the definition of Te, but I don't think it's necessarily defined solely by Te. The English language is just too maliable.
Behavior is external though. The reasons for behavior may be internal, but the behavior itself is external.
obviously notnot sure if you can put "behavior" under one function.
I see what you mean. In that case, what you said about dynamic sounds static as well, if I understand it correctly. It sounds like you're talking about noticing what is different about one state vs. another state. Dynamic would be about the actual process/action of becoming different.
Te is the behavior of objects, whereas Fe deals primarily with the behavior of people.I don't understand where Fe gets it's information from, to be honest. I was thinking of posting a topic about it.
"Behavior" is part of the definition of Te, but I don't think it's necessarily defined solely by Te. The English language is just too maliable.
Behavior is external though. The reasons for behavior may be internal, but the behavior itself is external.
http://socionics.us/works/semantics.shtml
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
People in and of themselves (as opposed to their relation to something else) are objects (at least as far as information aspects are concerned).
Okay. ::golf clap:: Good job, you get a cookie and a gold star. And with Fe, people are subjects. So behavior is still definitely a rather huge element of Fe.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
Statics and dynamics are difficult for dynamic types and static types to understand because all of a person's conscious functions are either static or dynamic.
I rewrote it... with Fe, people in and of themselves are objects. People in and of themselves are always objects. All extroverted information aspects are about a thing (person, situation, etc.) in and of itself, and all introverted information aspects are about the relationships/connections between things.Okay. ::golf clap:: Good job, you get a cookie and a gold star. And with Fe, people are subjects. So behavior is still definitely a rather huge element of Fe.
No, that's as far as Sensation, Logic, and Intuition are concerned.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
"Objects" must be used purely as a Socionics term here. If you think of the English meaning for "objects" it doesn't work for describing Fe.
Hmm sort of yes. I tried to give a static twist to the point of view of a dynamic type. For a dynamic type behaviour is what state is to a static type. If a static type is aware of distinct states, a dynamic type would be aware of distinct behaviours. And dynamic types see the world as changing or in constant motion because they observe, reason and express themselves in terms of behaviour, influence, effect,...I see what you mean. In that case, what you said about dynamic sounds static as well, if I understand it correctly. It sounds like you're talking about noticing what is different about one state vs. another state. Dynamic would be about the actual process/action of becoming different.
So you'd say that when a static type thinks he's looking at positions he is actually aware of positions, but when a dynamic type thinks he's looking at positions he is in fact more aware of speeds? And when speed is being looked at, a dynamic type would be more aware of acceleration? So when looking at the world, a static type sees the world itself, but a dynamic type sees the derivative?
A russian website I had posted about a few times before had
N, S = continual'nost' (integrity)
F, T = discretion (divisibility)
According to this, statics would then deal with discrete(separated) relationships
While dynamic would deal with integral(?) relationships
This fits with my own observations,
A static type focuses more on the distinct individual relationships between objects. They may recognize that individual relationships affect each other, but they have no problem discussing one individual relationship out of the however many.
A dynamic type is more aware of the many relationships and how they are all connected, having difficulty sorting out just one to discuss, and often faulting those who do.
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
