# Thread: On static and dynamic functions

1. ## On static and dynamic functions

Exposition of Static and Dynamic for Perceiving Functions

Static functions view things as not changing, whereas dynamic functions view things as changing; that much is textbook. Judicious types value Ne and Si - this means that they prefer an unchanging, reliable future, but like to vary their surroundings. Decisive types value Se and Ni - they like a stable environment, but constantly push the future in the way that they want it to go. There is another aspect to this - Judicious types will put strain on a certain future in order to gain some small benefit in the present, trusting that the future will survive the strain and not change in any meaningful way. On the other hand, Decisive types will strain the present to gain future benefit - they trust that the present can survive the pressure, and they can thus obtain a small future benefit without loss. On the other hand, if the stable future is actually threatened, Judicious types will find this more alarming than harm to the present; the future is somethin that is relied upon, and thus is considered sacred. Decisive types, on the other hand, consider the present sacred - although they usually don't thing that anything is at risk in the present, if something is observed to be actually at risk in the present, this is seen as serious. For Decisive types, the present is considered sacred, because it is relied upon to influence the future. Any present danger will be corrected, regardless of the cost to the future. Pe refers to that which is considered sacred, whereas Pi refers to that which is routinely changed.

Exposition of Static and Dynamic for Judging Functions

The same static vs. dynamic difference plays out in the field of logic and emotions - the Jx functions. Merry types rely on their logic to weather advances in knowledge. Because they trust their logic to apply reliably to any circumstance, they are free to seek happiness, so long as this does not threaten the reliability of their logic. While Merry logic is designed to last, it can still be brought under threat, and when the logic is at risk of failing, this is sacred - the illogic must be corrected, regardless of the cost to emotions. Serious types, on the other hand, consider their emotions reliable - they take a more general approach to emotions that allow them to weather changes in environment and culture. This reliability of emotions can be put under strain to affect small improvements in logic; however, if the emotions are seen to actually be under threat, this is considered sacred, and the problem will be corrected regardless of the cost to logic.

Description of my strong function in terms of static and dynamic

I am a member of Alpha Quadra - one who considers logic and the future sacred, but durable enough to strain without risk, and who considers emotions and the present changeable - not to be respected when something lasting is at stake, but to be nurtured and improved even in little ways. I am also a Static type, meaning that I focus on preserving that which is sacred and regulating how much strain may be put on it; I give little attention to less lasting things, though I wish that someone would take up the duty of improving those and give me a reason to strain my reliable things within their limits. In keeping with my role of preserving the stable things, I am capable of "catching" the dynamic forms of logic and intuition and bringing them under control. I prefer to - stable, final logic to developing logic - and when faced when a developing logic that may become outdated, I will attempt to generalize it, and give it a logical form that will withstand the wear of time and emotions. I also prefer to - a stable, reliable future to ever-changing possibilities - and when faced with an uncertain future, I will attempt to ensure a good worst-case scenario, so that this worst-case scenario can be used as a constant while making improvements to the present. Thus I face and counter manifestations of my id elements.

Relation of static and dynamic to supervision

In concluding this line of reasoning, I wonder how this relates to the supervision rings, including the one that I discussed in my previous thread. I consider that and , for instance, do not work together - even and work together only counterpoint, each one offering flexibility of the right sort to sustain the other. However, and - or an - can work together by their shared static nature, producing a shared perspective that is all the more durable for its two sources of stability. Thus, a Beta ST and an Alpha NT can work together to produce that is more reliable than either of them could produce alone, and the complementary nature of, for instance, accepting Ti and producing Ti is better suited for this sort of sharing than is the resonatory nature of, say, LII Ti and LSI Ti.

Further consequences of this analysis

I note that I have deviated significantly from the common view on one point - that of relating , not , to physical variation. I view this as simply a mistake in the previous handling of Socionics on this forum, and its correction helps me to see the purpose of in my psyche as something beyond eating when I'm hungry and showering when I smell bad. Also, this correction will have significant ramifications in changing the way that PoLR is viewed - no static PoLR relates to fearing change; rather it is dynamic types that will find themselves helpless when faced with change of a certain sort, that is, their PoLR, and static types that will be helpless in the face of a particular sort of stability.

The superego block does not need to be feared - this occurs only when the superego elements are related inextricably to their complementary elements. Taken alone, a superego element can as easily be a way to reinforce your ego elements as a way to deny you the right to subvert your id elements.

2. This makes a lot of sense to me. The only thing I would clarify is that Ne doesn't necessarily see one single static destiny in the future, but rather a static set or range of possibilities that may occur.

3. Originally Posted by Krig the Viking
This makes a lot of sense to me. The only thing I would clarify is that Ne doesn't necessarily see one single static destiny in the future, but rather a static set or range of possibilities that may occur.
That isn't a consequence of my static/dynamic analysis. It may be related to holographic thought - I'd like an ILE to comment on whether this applies to them.

4. I like this thread Brilliand, the following in particular.

Originally Posted by Brilliand
I note that I have deviated significantly from the common view on one point - that of relating , not , to physical variation. I view this as simply a mistake in the previous handling of Socionics on this forum, and its correction helps me to see the purpose of in my psyche as something beyond eating when I'm hungry and showering when I smell bad. Also, this correction will have significant ramifications in changing the way that PoLR is viewed - no static PoLR relates to fearing change; rather it is dynamic types that will find themselves helpless when faced with change of a certain sort, that is, their PoLR, and static types that will be helpless in the face of a particular sort of stability.

5. i think what you say here agrees with what i said recently on tiered process, and what me and krig discussed about absolute vs. relative. another word for static vs. dynamic.

6. Originally Posted by Brilliand
That isn't a consequence of my static/dynamic analysis. It may be related to holographic thought - I'd like an ILE to comment on whether this applies to them.
Ah, yes, I see what you mean.

It took me a few minutes to track down the source of the term "holographic thought", with which I was previously unfamiliar, and several hours to read Gulenko's article on Forms of Thinking, but yes, now I finally see what you mean.

7. I don't believe there exists anything "dynamic" in objective reality. Objective time is a spatial dimension. As such, in my views dynamics are by definition part of subjective experience. This is one of the reasons why I associate the "dynamic" functions with personal, intimate experience (flat, indecomposable face-value information) rather than with the world that occassioned this.

8. Originally Posted by brilliand
In concluding this line of reasoning, I wonder how this relates to the supervision rings, including the one that I discussed in my previous thread. I consider that and , for instance, do not work together - even and work together only counterpoint, each one offering flexibility of the right sort to sustain the other. However, and - or an - can work together by their shared static nature, producing a shared perspective that is all the more durable for its two sources of stability. Thus, a Beta ST and an Alpha NT can work together to produce that is more reliable than either of them could produce alone, and the complementary nature of, for instance, accepting Ti and producing Ti is better suited for this sort of sharing than is the resonatory nature of, say, LII Ti and LSI Ti.
I think this works for Relationship of Business as well as Supervision, but in different ways.

Take Se-Ti and Ne-Ti

SLE is a left/result type producing Ti via Se

ILE is a right/process type producing Ti via Ne

In practical matters, these relationships are high functioning in the product being well thought out from both information directions.

ILE -> <- SLE

These are good collaborative relationships with feedback.

For ILE and LSI these are both right process types.
This relationship is also called Relation of Order.

Basically one type produces a order for another, which is acted on independently.
ILE -> LSI
[ -> [] - > ]

This is not a collaborative relationship, more of a hand off relationship.

9. Removed at User Request

10. Originally Posted by Pinocchio
Didn't read the article yet, but what you say makes sense. Irrational Ne feels like a "doom" - a charge of something most likely to happen. When that appears, the alternative scenarios kinda fade away.
Actually, I've had this feeling too. Perhaps it isn't inherent in the type whether you think about one thing or many - just the type of thing you think about is element-related, and whether you're thinking about one or many is just a question of how you're distributing your mental resources. (So just think about a thing a whole bunch of times, and you've thought about many things!)

11. the judicious way of looking at things doesn't seem to make any sense, from a cause and effect perspective. decisive makes more sense, in terms of logical sequence.

12. Originally Posted by hkkmr
I think this works for Relationship of Business as well as Supervision, but in different ways.

Take Se-Ti and Ne-Ti

SLE is a left/result type producing Ti via Se

ILE is a right/process type producing Ti via Ne

In practical matters, these relationships are high functioning in the product being well thought out from both information directions.

ILE -> <- SLE

These are good collaborative relationships with feedback.

For ILE and LSI these are both right process types.
This relationship is also called Relation of Order.

Basically one type produces a order for another, which is acted on independently.
ILE -> LSI
[ -> [] - > ]

This is not a collaborative relationship, more of a hand off relationship.
yes...agree with this. i've seen it in action.

also, mirror would be good for production.

13. Removed at User Request

15. Originally Posted by Blaze
yes...agree with this. i've seen it in action.

also, mirror would be good for production.
This is a old post, but I want to comment on this.

Mirror Relations are good for a kind of mutual criticism, mirror share the same values but they operate completely differently. When they start interacting there is often a conflict, and then as things are discussed they are hashed out.

Now, there is a important reason why mirror relations can start off on the wrong foot. For each individual the Role function is the PoLR of their Mirror. In collaboration and work often the Role function will come to the forefront which creates situations where PoLR hits can occur. As contact functions, Role Functions are often how individuals start interactions with each other in combination with the creative function.

Only thru a period of discussion is there a resolution of the conflict, however this slow down the collaborative process. However, due to this hashing out of the Ego's by Mirrors, the collaboration will more fully reflect the preferences of these individuals, so the quality of the output may be appealing.

16. socionical functions are all about vectorization and superscalar operation on these. it is about organizing multiple elements into contexts and contexts relative to subcontexts and vice-versa.

Static aspects are vectorized from a subjective point of view. they combine multiple experiential percepts into one. for example, by representing a 3-dimensional object through the 2-dimensional perspectives from which it has been (and can be) perceived.

Dynamic aspects are vectorized from an objective point of view... which... is a problematic concept for obvious reasons. the proper way is to instead say they are non-vectorized from the vantage point of the mental. however, we know they are vectorized in that all that is mental has a real world correlate and counterpart. hence from the point of view of an external observer looking back at us it is again vectorized and behaving in a way that merits scalar processing to understand it...

wow. vectorized processing is a relative rarity in CPU functioning; a specialism at best... but in a mental model, a thing that socionics operates within... it would encompass almost everything computational. the potential is debilitating.

17. Originally Posted by labcoat
socionical functions are all about vectorization and superscalar operation on these. it is about organizing multiple elements into contexts and contexts relative to subcontexts and vice-versa.

Static aspects are vectorized from a subjective point of view. they combine multiple experiential percepts into one. for example, by representing a 3-dimensional object through the 2-dimensional perspectives from which it has been (and can be) perceived.

Dynamic aspects are vectorized from an objective point of view... which... is a problematic concept for obvious reasons. the proper way is to instead say they are non-vectorized from the vantage point of the mental. however, we know they are vectorized in that all that is mental has a real world correlate and counterpart. hence from the point of view of an external observer looking back at us it is again vectorized and behaving in a way that merits scalar processing to understand it...

wow. vectorized processing is a relative rarity in CPU functioning; a specialism at best... but in a mental model, a thing that socionics operates within... it would encompass almost everything computational. the potential is debilitating.
I think it's simpler than this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soar_(c..._architecture)

Static functions create states, and dynamic functions act as operators.

Also imo it's easier to describe socionics IM as software vs hardware.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•