the most fundamental dichotomy

[Trevor]

vote please

[crazedrat]

we dont have a word for it, i just call it absolute vs. relative. the common thread between Ij and Ep is absolute, for Ip and Ej is relative. Can't pick either i/e or j/p ..

[Trevor]

we dont have a word for it

static vs dynamic

[crazedrat]

ah

[Danielle]

I still don't get the whole static/dynamic thing. I can't find explanations of it that offer concrete examples. Since it's such a fundamental dichotomy, it should be easy to find examples right? In the things people say, their postings, etc.

[Not A Communist Shill]

In terms of the field of psychology, and out of those four options, I would say Extroversion/Introversion. It's the one that sets people apart...the people who are often found in groups from the ones who are removed from groups...the outdoor people from the indoor people and so on! (loosely speaking). The others are not such significant dividers.

Now the Socionics answer..."Extroversion/Introversion" isn't "Extroversion/Introversion", so in that sense, none of these four dichotomies are fundamental.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Jarno]

Introversion/Extraversion. The other three are all related to functions.

[Gilly]

Introversion/Extraversion. The other three are all related to functions.

So is introversion/extroversion...

[Blaze]

i'll go w the majority here...it's rational/irrational. but extraversion/introversion is a pretty close second.....so i'd have to say temperament is fundamental.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[stanprollyright]

I say rationality/irrationality because it is the only dichotomy that needs to be the same between duals. Within any quadra, the types with the same rationality as you are always the ones with whom you have a better relationship.

[1981slater]

The p/j switch is, in my eyes, the most important one. Most of the people I hang out with are irrationals, and in spite of we don't belong to the same quadra, we still can interact...somehow

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[717495]

I still don't get the whole static/dynamic thing. I can't find explanations of it that offer concrete examples. Since it's such a fundamental dichotomy, it should be easy to find examples right? In the things people say, their postings, etc.

I have a hard time with examples. Although one gives a clear exact view of the difference, I have a hard time using that example to detect other instances. Where as using the description I am able to detect many instances. Just try to picture the difference in one field, say in terms of ethics, to get a clearer understanding. Perhaps how its described here

Static and dynamic - Wikisocion

Anyway, on that note, don't you think it might be easier to define types in terms of their dynamic or static values (only if the difference truly comes as more important than extroversion/introversion or any other dichotomy.) Gamma quadra values for instance being:

Static Sensing
Dynamic Intuition
Static Ethics
Dynamic Logic

If not, then the system we have now is just fine. I think a new system of looking at things might open up new doors to theory though.

[Minde]

I might venture judging vs perceiving, in terms of functions - not to be confused with rational/irrational temperaments, though it is connected, of course. It's all interconnected. And, yes, I realize my answer isn't on the poll. But I think it is the most, or perhaps just a, foundational concept/dichotomy. More than the others listed, anyway.

[crazedrat]

I have a hard time with examples. Although one gives a clear exact view of the difference, I have a hard time using that example to detect other instances. Where as using the description I am able to detect many instances. Just try to picture the difference in one field, say in terms of ethics, to get a clearer understanding. Perhaps how its described here

Static and dynamic - Wikisocion

Anyway, on that note, don't you think it might be easier to define types in terms of their dynamic or static values (only if the difference truly comes as more important than extroversion/introversion or any other dichotomy.) Gamma quadra values for instance being:

Static Sensing
Dynamic Intuition
Static Ethics
Dynamic Logic

If not, then the system we have now is just fine. I think a new system of looking at things might open up new doors to theory though.

yes, but not like that. because the words you're using like 'intuition', etc. need to be defined better. the distinction between Ni and Ne is more than one level of static vs. dynamic
for example:
Ne: static statics of dynamics
Ni: dynamic dynamics of dynamics

[Jarno]

So is introversion/extroversion...

with functions I meant the basic functions, sensing intuition thinking feeling.
Not the si se ni ne ti te fi fe

[717495]

Ne: static statics of dynamics
Ni: dynamic dynamics of dynamics

I have no idea what that means, but I know how to identify the field of intuition.

[krieger]

I still don't get the whole static/dynamic thing. I can't find explanations of it that offer concrete examples. Since it's such a fundamental dichotomy, it should be easy to find examples right? In the things people say, their postings, etc.

The general trend is that the two Static temperaments are more autonomous in the sense that they have a stronger sense of personal direction and easily act apart from anything going on in the environment, whereas the two Dynamic temperaments are more synergetic with the environment; better able to respond naturally to events, better able to make do with what the world offers them.

[717495]

The general trend is that the two Static temperaments are more autonomous in the sense that they have a stronger sense of personal direction and easily act apart from anything going on in the environment, whereas the two Dynamic temperaments are more synergetic with the environment; better able to respond naturally to events, better able to make do with what the world offers them.

This sounds much closer to irrationality and rationality and not my understanding of static and dynamic. Also, I don't think this answers Danielle's question either way.

[crazedrat]

I have no idea what that means, but I know how to identify the field of intuition.

You are not acknowledging there is a distinction between one field of intuition and another, prior to your distinction of static vs. dynamic

[krieger]

This sounds much closer to irrationality and rationality and not my understanding of static and dynamic.

I assume you associate Rationals with autonomy and Irrationals with synergy then. However:

Eps are all about following their own ideas and impulses. The environment is in large part ignorned. It only serves a cue to them; a trigger for them to spring to action. This is not a mindset in which synergy with the environment is the aim or the focus.

Ejs on the other hand are all about decisively working with oppurtunities and materials that are provided by the environment. They don't judge what they find, they don't assess the value of things subjectively; they just work with what they get. Most of the time they let the availability of tools and materials determine for them what their goals are. They always adjust the latter to the former rather than the other way around. This is not a primarily autonomous mindset, but a synergetic one.

[Joy]

rationality/irrationality for sure

[717495]

You are not acknowledging there is a distinction between one field of intuition and another, prior to your distinction of static vs. dynamic

I don't know what you mean by intuition. In socionics, there is obviously the field of intuition. Static/extroverted Intuition, and Dynamic/introverted intuition. I'm aware of the difference, but I wouldn't call the difference static statics of dynamics and dynamic dynamics of dynamics. That makes little sense.

I assume you associate Rationals with autonomy and Irrationals with synergy then.

No actually how you define static sounds like irrationality, and your idea of dynamic sounds like rationality.

[krieger]

You think Ij types are synergetic with their environment and capable of naturally responding to the world, and Ip types have strong personal direction? This goes against just about everything that has ever been written on socionics.

[crazedrat]

I don't know what you mean by intuition. In socionics, there is obviously the field of intuition. Static/extroverted Intuition, and Dynamic/introverted intuition. I'm aware of the difference, but I wouldn't call the difference static statics of dynamics and dynamic dynamics of dynamics. That makes little sense.

if intuition = intuition, introverted intuition does not = dynamic intuition, &
extraverted intuition does not = static intuition.
introverted does not = dynamic, extraverted does not = static.
introverted intuition - introverted does not = dynamic intuition - dynamic.
assuming introverted intuition is dynamic intuition, and extraverted intuition is static intuition:
static intuition - static does not = dynamic intuition - dynamic. intuition does not = intuition
Understood?

[717495]

You think Ij types are synergetic with their environment and capable of naturally responding to the world, and Ip types have strong personal direction? This goes against just about everything that has ever been written on socionics.

Yep, that sounds pretty close to what I believe. Being an irrational, even the definition of irrationality, constitutes that.

From Rick's site for example:

Rationals act according to the expectation of a situation; form an expectation or plan, then act.
Irrationals act according to their current state of mind (impulsiveness).

[krieger]

I don't see how Rick's quotes are relevant to the issue.

This quote, however, is definitely relevant:

4."First and foremost, he is kind". In spite of all his "negativism", he is really a very kindly person in nature. The above phrase about Honoré de Balzac belongs to George Sand who knew him very well. He likes strong people who know their way in life, who demand concessions: such people release him from the necessity to invent goals, while using methods invented by him (he is a master of inventing methods.) He is capable of pouring a bucket of cold water out on the head of an enthusiast. But on the other hand, he is likewise capable of easing one's despair, when they are unlucky, when things go the wrong way, when destiny seems to be hostile.

It describes INTps as having difficulty making goals for themselves: lacking personal autonomy.

[717495]

It describes INTps as having difficulty making goals for themselves: lacking personal autonomy.

Has nothing to do with lacking personal autonomy, and this briefly put would explain why something like difficulty making goals would be said about INTps:

Rationals act according to the expectation of a situation; form an expectation or plan, then act.

[krieger]

Has nothing to do with lacking personal autonomy

How can a person be autonomous if s/he can not even decide what s/he wants?

and this briefly put would explain why something like difficulty making goals would be said about INTps:

The description assumes the ESFp to provide the goal. That is also an irrational type, but a Static one. So there you go.

[717495]

How can a person be autonomous if s/he can not even decide what s/he wants?

The description assumes the ESFp to provide the goal. That is also an irrational type, but a Static one. So there you go.

Yeah that makes sense now. I can see how thats true of static and dynamic types, how its true of me, and was a little confused about the terms used, and how this pairs with the originating explanation of the dichotomy (frames per second). What kind of sources are available for these types of descriptions you gave?

[krieger]

It's importance is about on par with that of Rational/Irrational, but it's not nearly as well documented. It's best to just focus on the 4 temperaments.

[717495]

It's importance is about on par with that of Rational/Irrational, but it's not nearly as well documented. It's best to just focus on the 4 temperaments.

Any good sources on the four temperaments? Even though I know of some, wondering if you have a preference.

[stanprollyright]

This is exactly why I said they are somehow the same level. But I don't have any idea why you consider Rationality more important, as long as your dual has strictly the opposite: Extroversion, Dynamicity, Externality.

I consider rationality slightly more important because there is a larger disconnect between rationals and irrationals than introverts and extroverts. Take any mirror pair with the same ego functions and you will always have a better relationship with the one who has the same rationality. The same cannot be said about heteroversion.

Switching the I/E dichotomy will change the aspect of every function (from introverted to extroverted), but not the functions themselves (an ENFp and INFp both lead with intuition). Switching the rationality changes not only aspect of every function, but the order as well (an ESTp and ESTj: not only is one Se and Ti and the other is Si and Te, but one leads with thinking and the other with sensing).

[krieger]

Joy wrote some decent descriptions of them a while ago:

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ment-test.html

There should be another thread with descriptions buried in the Gamma quadra board somewhere, but I'm not sure how to find it back.

[717495]

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...peraments.html

[The Exception]

I say rationality/irrationality because it is the only dichotomy that needs to be the same between duals. Within any quadra, the types with the same rationality as you are always the ones with whom you have a better relationship.

Stan, u prolly right

[Joy]

ty, labcoat

I say rationality/irrationality because I'd rather be with an EII than an SEE. Apparently (based on my history) I'd rather be with LII's and LSI's than SEE's too, though I wouldn't attempt a relationship with either of these types again. EP's are just too... not IJ... for me.

Every time I doubt my type (thinking maybe I'm ILI after all) because IJ's are just too perfect for me.

[717495]

Every time I doubt my type (thinking maybe I'm ILI after all) because IJ's are just too perfect for me.

Every time you think you're an ILI, you should remember what you think about SEEs.