Order the Dichotomies
If you were to order the Dichotomies from most effective to least effective, as if one were to type with them (amongst other tools), how would you order them? Say one person doesn't fit all of one type's dichotomies, then by ordering them you'll know which dichotomies are most significant to type, or rather a "usual" fit for type. Order them 1,2,3,4,5,6,7...etc.
I'm also aware that different dichotomies work better for different types, and you can specify those in brackets if you feel the need.
look for smilex thread in the articles section. if I remember correctly he does this for each type with nice sin wave graphs and everything.
Hmm just read it, and
Process/Result is a favourite, as are the two Quadra dichotomies (excluding Aristocratic/Democratic, which I find pretty useless).
Extraversion/introversion is likewise fairly useless.
My comments for now.
Most useful in my mind:
Static/Dynamic
Reasonable/Resolute
Merry/Serious
LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP
Interesting.Originally Posted by warrior-librarian
How would you say you see static/dynamic in other people?
To the best of my abilities:How would you say you see static/dynamic in other people?
Dynamics are people that think broadly, but shallowly. They spend most of their time broadening their understanding of a problem, focussing mostly on increasing the amount of data available to them. They tend to prioritize less and seem to consider everything equally important. They very rarely discard things in their entirety, trying to make use of things even when there is no guaranteed return on the effort spent doing so.
Statics are people that think narrowly, but deeply. They spend most of their time deepening their understanding of a problem, building forth on previous conclusions with a minimal amount of intermediate testing. They have definite priorities in everything they do, outspokenly judging the value of some things as higher than that of others. They discard most things they come across, only adding to their body of trusted data what fits in with what they already have.
Dynamics: lots of data, few conclusions/opinions
Statics: lots of conclusions/opinions, little data
Dynamics: more likely to be naive than paranoid
Statics: more likely to be paranoid than naive
Dynamics: focus on the way actions are excecuted, rather than on their significance
Statics: focus on the significance of actions, rather than on the way they are excecuted
Dynamics: act mostly in response to events in the environment
Statics: act mostly with the intent to control or reshape the environment
Dynamics: appear more harmonious with their environment; respond it it's movements more naturally
Statics: appear more autonomous; more easily find their way when the environment doesn't offer any clues
I agree that this one is important, possibly as important as Rational/Irrational.
Flame away over how "wrong" this is. I don't see anyone else ever posting a description of this dichotomy and I don't see it happen anytime soon unless smilingeyes makes a sudden return in activity around here.
Last edited by krieger; 06-14-2009 at 07:08 PM.
I'm confused about where I stand on static/dynamic now. According to the wiki socion site Static and dynamic - Wikisocion I'd say static; according to Labcoat's description, I'd say dynamic.
LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP
These are all pretty good:
1 Irrational / Rational
2 Introversian / Extraversian
3 Logic / Ethics
4 Sensing / Intuition
5 Farsighted / Carefree
6 Yielding / Obstinate
7 Askers / Declarers
The other Reinin dichotomies just didn't fit me at all or were only partially recognizable.
It's pretty abstract. The problem I have with it is that everybody has an attitude towards both "Static" and "Dynamic" things in reality. It's which level you expand your knowledge on, which level you actively explore with your imagination, that determines wether you are actually Static or Dynamic in socionics.
Which part of the description of Static do you have trouble with? Is there anything about the description of Dynamic that you strongly identify with? To what degree are you sure you are an INTj?
Based on the static/dynamic descriptions at Static and dynamic - Wikisocion
I think the static part above is more like me.
- Static IM types contain static IM elements in their mental ring (functions 1 through 4), and dynamic elements in the vital ring (5 through 8). This means that they tend to verbalize things from a static standpoint, while their behavior is more influenced by dynamic aspects.
- Dynamic IM types contain dynamic IM elements in their mental ring, and static element in the vital ring. They tend to verbalize things from a dynamic standpoint, while their behavior is more influenced by static aspects.
Typical characteristics of staticsTypical characteristics of dynamics
- More inclined to say how stages A, B and C are
- More inclined to talk of properties and structures of reality
- Perception of reality is more like 8 frames per second (Talanov)
I identify with the first statement of both descriptions- I do alot of both.
- More inclined to say how stage A leads to stage B, and how stage B leads to stage C
- More inclined to talk of movements and interactions of reality
- Perception of reality is more like 64 frames per second (Talanov)
I identify strongly with the second statement of the static description but not so much with the second statement of the dynamic description.
I'm not sure if my perception of reality is more like 8 or 64 frames per second- I'm leaning towards the former. I remember seeing an analogy that static is like a slideshow, dynamic is like a video clip. When I reflect on things and pull an event from my memory, I guess it resembles snapshots more than a video clip. So I'm thinking that's more static.
And now for Labcoat's static/dynamic description. I've boldfaced the parts that are particularly true for me.
Dynamics are people that think broadly, but shallowly. They spend most of their time broadening their understanding of a problem, focussing mostly on increasing the amount of data available to them. They tend to prioritize less and seem to consider everything equally important. They very rarely discard things in their entirety, trying to make use of things even when there is no guaranteed return on the effort spent doing so.
Statics are people that think narrowly, but deeply. They spend most of their time deepening their understanding of a problem, building forth on previous conclusions with a minimal amount of intermediate testing. They have definite priorities in everything they do, outspokenly judging the value of some things as higher than that of others. They discard most things they come across, only adding to their body of trusted data what fits in with what they already have.
I'm not sure if I would classify my thinking as more broad/shallow or narrow/deep. It can be either depending on the situation. Based on these paragraphs, dynamic is a better fit. Static feels too rigid.
Dynamics: lots of data, few conclusions/opinions
Statics: lots of conclusions/opinions, little data
I often feel like I never have enough information and/or not sure what to make of it all.
Dynamics: more likely to be naive than paranoid
Statics: more likely to be paranoid than naive
Hmmm. Neither statement is particularly characteristic of me. If I had to choose, I'd say the first one.
Dynamics: focus on the way actions are excecuted, rather than on their significance
Statics: focus on the significance of actions, rather than on the way they are excecuted
Strongly more static than dynamic in this regard.
Dynamics: act mostly in response to events in the environment
Statics: act mostly with the intent to control or reshape the environment
Not so sure, but I think I lean more towards the first statement. I tend to accept the environment as it is for the most part and see little need to change it, unless the environment is physically or emotionally uncomfortable.
Dynamics: appear more harmonious with their environment; respond it it's movements more naturally
Statics: appear more autonomous; more easily find their way when the environment doesn't offer any clues
What clues are you talking about here? I have a good sense of direction and can find my way around new places quite well. How does finding their way relate to static?
I agree that this one is important, possibly as important as Rational/Irrational.
It may be important but I'm having a hard time placing myself in this dichotomy. To answer your question about how sure I am of being an INTj, I would say about 95% sure. The type description fits, I'm more I than E, more N than S, more T than F, and more j than p. I am clear on the I, N, and T but less so on the j/p dichotomy. I've considered INTp as a type- its usually the 2nd or 3rd highest type after INTj. So why INTj for myself rather than INTp?
Quadra has alot to do with it. Alpha quadra values reasonate with me. Gamma not so much. I get on well with all four types of the alpha quadra. I do okay with gamma NTs but not so well with gamma SFs. I identify far more with reasonable than resolute and far more with merry/subjectivist than serious/objectivist.
In terms of functions and their positions, that would point to more to being INTj. I don't seeas being a base function for myself. I see myself as using
as a creative function to serve my
. I value
but don't prefer to spend as much time there.
With the PoLR things get more tricky. I identify alot with bothand
PoLR.
I seek
LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP
...Isn't that more to do with Introversion/Extraversion?
Here, look at this, and scroll down to "intellectual qualities":
Socionics :: Extraversion / Introversion
Regarding the tactical types in the Strategic/Tactical dichotomy, the Wikisocion.org site says for tactical types "Goals are defined by, and modified to fit methods" and for strategic types "Methods are defined by, and modified to fit goals."
I can see many everday examples of how one would modify methods to meet a goal. I'm curious about everyday examples of how one would modify goals to fit methods. That just seems backwards to me.
LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP
That is exactly the point. The dichotomies lie in the perception to assume functionality of end results, ie. "can this be done in another way?"
Mr. Strategic will say: well we can do y instead of x, and it might take some extra time, but will get the job done. basically, "let's rethink this."
Ms. Tactical will say: well perhaps we'll go with my backup plan, it will save time. then we will think of what happens from here. (this type is likely to not have one major thing being valued over other things, simply based on the fact that they want to save time to include other opportunities)
So you're basically looking at an "implementation perfectionist" (who sometimes easily fails because of loyalty to one selection, all the eggs in one basket) vs. an "opportunity perfectionist" (who sometimes doesn't act completely on the golden chances because the person is too spread out, building bridges and making room for opportunity, nonetheless taking for granted some opportunities) . . . so to speak.
Take the main character in the movies for instance. You know what needs to be done to win the situation, but the main character says "hold on, I have an idea." To your guestimation, we will think up something clever to win the situation. However he surprises you by completely changing the dynamics of the situation, thus his backup plan was in fact a goal, not a method. The original goal doesn't matter anymore because the situation changed. These types like to play with the situation until they become satisfied. Take "the joker" for instance, as your classic Tactical type. How is he going to change his method? You see that man-genius use the same basic weapons over and over again and he's lightly armed. He has no master plan to change his methods to. Definite Tactical type.
This dichotomy is where I think a lot of people assume dynamic/static instead, which is something I wouldn't recommend. Static/dynamic is more about the process not the result. So if you're a process type, static/dynamic might classify you more easily. However it would make more sense to get a result type to classify you in terms of strategic/tactical, because it's how they're based in the first place, it is something they would notice before you would, get what I'm trying to say? I'm a result type, so this idea of tactical/strategic fairly narrows me down to ESE, IEI, ESI, or IEE.
I also wanted to make an assumption. I don't think dynamic types like change as much as statics do. Everyone I've assumed to be a static tells me they like change, and everyone I've assumed to be dynamic tells me they dislike change. Dynamics like to keep a steady course, and by wanting so keep track of the frames so there is no wandering onto undefined points. Statics like to assume the point of reference is in tandem with an already current course, so the change doesn't bother them as long as they can define the point of reference with other points of that course. This is a simple way of how Ne can beat Ni to the conclusion, so to speak. Ni has to draw out a map based on the flow of intuition, where as Ne can often guess something seemingly unrelated, but because it has a similar essence to those of nearby points of reference, it makes the conclusion. I'm going to show you a picture of what I'm talking about, and how static/dynamic works.
Wouldn't rational/irrational differences also be important for determining whether someone likes change or not? I can see EP statics liking change more than IJ statics and EJ disliking change more than IP dynamics.
LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP
Not really sure what you mean. I don't see this.
I like changes that are of my own making and when I have a choice as to whether or not I want to make a change. I'll often make changes to satisfy curiosity (e.g. try a new route to work, try a new restaurant, learn a new subject) or for the sake of self-improvement. What I dislike are changes that are thrust upon me and suddenly I must adapt. (e.g. I'm forced to try a new route to work because there is road construction, I got laid off from a job and must find a way to financially cope- those kinds of things). I suspect many people are rather like this so I don't know how type related this all is.
LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP
Heh, most people.
No no no no no, I like change, very much. I always want things to change because I get bored of things easily. But I don't really think that this is type related, because I know that people of the same type can either like or not like change.
Liking/not linking change is also related to Irrational/Rational (respective orderings), IMO.
I'm EJ and I don't really love love change. I like small nice changes but not big stuff. For example, I hate moving.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
I enjoyed readin' it, labcoat
ILE "Searcher"
Socionics: ENTp
DCNH: Dominant
Enneagram: 7w6 "Enthusiast"
MBTI: ENTJ "Field Marshall" or ENTP "Inventor"
Astrological sign: Aquarius
To learn, read. To know, write. To master, teach.
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.
Example:
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.
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
One of the things that I've noticed (and I'm sure others have) is that some people are more blatantly obvious of one or two dichotomy sets over others. But even amongst people of the same type, the most obvious parts may differ amongst individuals. This is kind of where subtypes attempts to describe these differences, but imo, the differences go beyond ego1 vs ego2.
For myself, I prefer the following aspects:
1. involved/abstract (to what degree is this person comfortable with abstracts...which level of abstractions do they prefer? ie: Levels of Abstraction )
2. internal/external (to what degree does this person prefer things to be defined? How comfortable are they with certain things not being well defined?)
3. static/dynamic & object/field (these seem to pop out about 50/50...as in for about half the people i know, it's easier to see s/d, for the other half or so it's easier to see o/f)
4. temperament (EP, IP, EJ, IJ) (these may not be considered 'model a' nor 'socionics' but I do find them useful, regardless)
So, for example, I may meet someone who is most comfortable with discussing the internal dynamics of something(s) regardless of whether those internal dynamics are involved or abstract. This suggests Beta quadra (Fe & Ni are both elements that deal with internal dynamics; Fe being 'involved', Ni being 'abstract'). If the person has an IP temperament, then I might consider INFp as a possibility for them.
Then I also meet someone who is most comfortable dealing with abstract fields (dealing with abstract relationships or abstract interactions between things) regardless of whether those fields are defined or not. This suggests Beta quadra (Ni & Ti are both elements that deal with abstract fields; Ti being defined, Ni not so defined). This person also has an IP temperament, so I consider INFp as a possibility for them.
Both of these people have different focuses, yet might possibly be the same type. (I don't definitely type them as being INFp unless I've seen these things consistently in their discussions/behavior over time and in different situations. At which point the two people might come to resemble each other more and more as those are both qualities of Beta + IP.)
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
Why is that not socionics?
So irrationals don't like change you mean? Their main mode is to understand the world as it is, where as rationals attempt to work toward how things are supposed to be. I don't necessarily see it as one liking change over the other, since a progression towards a goal, so to speak, can easily change just as can something as it is.
I've seen plenty of arguments for temperaments being more mbti than socionics, flat out not-socionics, as well as part of socionics. And since this is a "model A" specific thread (cuz it's under "General Discussion - Model A"), I didn't want to risk being attacked from either side. I have no idea if temperaments are actually part of model A socionics or not. Regardless if it is or isn't, I find it useful.
(note, the aspects are also argued about whether or not they are socionics and/or model A. But since I'm not saying whether or not something IS model A, and was instead saying that 'for myself', then hopefully that would cover me from various attacks from either side.)
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
ah yes.I've seen plenty of arguments for temperaments being more mbti than socionics, flat out not-socionics, as well as part of socionics. And since this is a "model A" specific thread (cuz it's under "General Discussion - Model A"), I didn't want to risk being attacked from either side. I have no idea if temperaments are actually part of model A socionics or not. Regardless if it is or isn't, I find it useful.
(note, the aspects are also argued about whether or not they are socionics and/or model A. But since I'm not saying whether or not something IS model A, and was instead saying that 'for myself', then hopefully that would cover me from various attacks from either side.
Well I think model A is named in particular to exclude people debating model x or things that deviate far from classical socionics.
Temperaments and clubs are common socionics terminology. And they are indeed useful, especially because people who don't use socionics (layman) unknowingly use the terms often. for example a colleague of mine said me and my former girlfriend had a totally different temperament. (EJ vs IP). Also terms like 'idealists' or 'technology nerds' are used by layman, adressing the socionics club to which someone belongs, in this case the NF or NT. So this means they are very easy to notice in a person's behaviour.
No, the other way around. It's pretty typical of Rationals to be sceptical of the merit of changes. This often surfaces in the descriptions of the trait.
Most people like change from bad to better. Most people dislike change from good to worse.
Would me fitting the dichotomies of introversion, intuition, logic, rationality, strategic, and result, as well as knowledge of the ego pertaining to
If you need to ask other people, no.Would me fitting the dichotomies of introversion, intuition, logic, rationality, strategic, and result, as well as knowledge of the ego pertaining to
What is important is that YOU know.
You don't understand. The main reason for me asking is so that I am directed into a understanding or field of socionics approximated by me. That is generally how I chose to devise information, so I ask on an objective basis.
I suppose I still don't understand. But good luck!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
