I just wanted to add in regarding static/dynamic...
Static types prefer to focus on what's relatively stable or consistent.
Dynamic types more easily focus on changes and interactions.
(note, this doesn't mean that one does or doesn't prefer changes in their own lives; also, DS and HA does play a large role in how one regards changes in lives/situations/environment)
Static types can more easily jump from node to node to node where there's seemingly no connection or very few connections between the nodes.
Dynamic types treat those nodes as if they must all be related together somehow.
(often leading to confusion during conversations)
Dynamic types constantly bring up how 'this is related to that which is related to that other which is related to this other...you can't forget that' or 'if you talk about this, then you can't separate it from these other things, you can't treat it in isolation'.
Static types might often wish that the dynamic type would just stop bringing up all that other stuff and talk about this one thing.
An example of this is that static types find it easier to talk about the socionics elements in isolation. The static type recognizes and acknowledges that the elements don't work alone, but it doesn't stop them from talking about an element as separate from the other elements.
While a dynamic type is more likely to get frustrated by such talk..pffft the elements all interact with each other, they influence each other, you can NOT talk about them as if they don't!!
This often leads to arguments where the static type is trying to define or describe an element or something, and the dynamic type bitches at them for treating it as if it's an isolated thing. The static type isN'T saying that the element IS isolated and doesn't interact, they aren't even trying to suggest that. Often they are assuming that the reader is already aware that the elements interact with each other. But it doesn't mean they can't talk about the node..the element...itself.