.
DCNH and connecting/ignoring
.
It's basically the same as Dynamic/Static in the base type. Connecting types are more aware of actions and events going on around them, while Ignoring types are less aware of them and more focused on other things (in the case of Creative, they're focused on their new ideas, and in the case of Normalizing, they're focused on keeping their "domain" in order). Compared to Connectors, Ignorers are more oblivious to what's happening around them.
Quaero Veritas.
But this is just a slight tweak on the base type, yes?
So an Ignoring SEI is more disconnected than a Connecting SEI, but is still an SEI and thus fairly aware of things happening in the here-and-now, right?
possible example of ignoring
here is an example of ignoring thier environment: a ENTP tells his story of how he lost his phone. At point A, his house, he had his phone in his pocket. At point B, a bar, he realises his phone is no longer in his pocket. The way he mentions his house and the bar is only to indicate the moment when he had his phone and later no longer had his phone. He double backs on his bike to find it.
As he tells the story there is zero mention of location. He makes it sound as if he rode his bike through empty space. He did not mention where he searched. I assume a connector would tell the story differently in terms of making mention of where they possibly lost their phone and where they searched for it, i.e. checked the bike path, the park, this street, that street, etc.
An ILI may not be paying much attention to what is happening physically here and now, but he is still paying attention to what is happening on a larger scale, i.e., what is likely happening somewhere else, what trends are happening into the future, what is happening on a deeper, metaphorical level, etc. Static types like an ILE aren't paying attention to "what is happening" at all -- they're looking at static things that don't change: ideas, concepts, etc. Occasionally they refocus and look at the world around them and take note of what's changed, then they go back to focusing on ideas and concepts, just as Dynamic types like ILI can focus on static aspects of the world if they want to.
Connecting/Ignoring is basically like a gradation within the boundaries of type of the same thing -- a Connecting SEI will be more aware of "what's happening" than an Ignoring SEI will be, but both are more aware of what's happening than any LII.
Quaero Veritas.
I would have thought connecting / ignoring mostly dealt with attention towards other human beings, rather then the whole environment. For example, a sensory C type might not be focussed on ideas, preferring sensorial types of creation (sculpture, dancing, etc.) which require a high degree of attention towards the environment.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Static/Dynamic is also about relative depth/shallowness of interest. Dynamics just observe the surface of things and define their relation to appearances only, whereas Statics interface with the reality behind the veil of observation.
Yeah I agree with you there. In my management class it took me a few days, but I was able to realize that to do well in the class I had to think like an LSE. There was no real "theory" behind management, just a list of things to expect as one tried to get a grip on the actual circumstances themselves -- the particulars of "this particular business".Originally Posted by labcoat
Dynamic types are very attuned to the circumstantial; static types are not.
By the way, as a dynamic type, I feel the same about management classes (even when they're taught by, say, LSIs - so static types).
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
On the redeeming side, Dynamics take more time to gather information on complex topics before they deal with these. This is the flipside of their reluctance to commit to thinking about the nature of things "behind the scenes". By putting off the complex issues, they end up finding more "face value" information about these, in the process often becoming better judges of the issues than Statics are in their rash enthusiasm.
( I equate "behind the scenes" interest with complexity here, because finding out the truth about reality as it is independent of observation is a more complex task than cognizing observations themselves - as they are given - is )
Gulenko has been using the words "synthetic" and "analytic" to denote respectively Dynamic and Static with for years. "Synthetic" is basically a synonym of circumstantial.
I had a major leap of understanding when I found out that the subjectively observed and the circumstantial are inherently linked. Only the subject is defined by his/her progression through time. Reality, in as far as one can reasonably be postulated, is outside of - and independent from time, by definition.
Well it's more about connecting with/being affected by one's environment or circumstances, as opposed to just paying attention to them.
When reading the psychological descriptions of the 16 socionic types on socionics.com and reading DCNH article, does it not seem as if two different authors share the same name "victor gulenko".
The psychological descriptions of the 16 socionic types is specific, brief and objective. He describes a types walk, stance, tone of voice, appearance, strengths, weaknesses, etc. They sound like real people and that in turn makes the psychological theory sound like a real theory.
On the other hand, the DCNH article is theorhetical and abstract. For example, the dominant subtype has strengthened Te and Fe and they motivate and become the leader in the group. That sounds like an assocation between the quality of leadership and Te and Fe. Leadership is not a specific trait like ENTP loosing their buttons on their shifts and ISTJ males frequently have mustasches.
The 16 socionic types are real people but DCNH sounds a theory without any humanity. When I read other subtype descriptions they mention the way ESFJ ethical subtype appears angular and the ESFJ sensory subtype appears roundish. That is a specific difference that makes telling them apart easier.
If you are wondering which subtype you are then you can read the description and what they see about the subtype is what you can see about yourself because there is usually specific traits to identify with. Terminating/iniating, connecting/ignoring, etc. That is purely observatory, you would need to examine yourself by watching yourself through a monitor screen to figure that out along side victor gulenko. Unless of course people mention how terminating you are, that you can be very terminating sometimes, as a child your teachers noticed how terminating you are compared to the rest of the children in class, your perfect woman would be terminating, because terminating is a very attractive feature in a woman. I love terminating women, they're so hot. I'm just not as attracted to ignoring women, they rub me the wrong way.
I would say the crux of the matter is in modular vs holistic approach. I've half-written a rant about Ni and depth, "behind the scenes" vs "face value" as being the nature of understanding and knowledge itself, respectively, as well as perspective bias, but let's skip that part. I expect it would have only ended up in argument anyway.
From my Ni-base POV, the "behind the scenes" quality clearly determines the understanding or lack of it, leading me to lose interest in many subjects which seemed to dismiss deeper understanding over the years. This is totally consistent with your mention of getting in-depth about information - although it's paradoxical in that Ni thrives in situations of scarcity of information, exactly because of holistic approach I mentioned. It's the meaning of the image emerging from information that is the "behind the scenes" quality, seeing the undercurrents that shape it, the "theory" tcaud speaks of, though of course it can't always be explicitly formulated. To me the "rash enthusiasm" you mention seems to be taking it at "face value", relying on a limited perspective as opposed to eliminating perspective bias as much as possible by taking into account everything available.
Yet it's quite obviously the opposite of what you say, irreconcilable unless we consider that the real problem lies in looking behind each part (modular or analytic approach) as opposed to looking behind the whole picture (holistic, synthetic), not in looking behind or not, as you said - not so much unjustly as missing the point of the holistic approach, or even - shoot me for that - taking it at face value, ignoring the purpose of grasping the inner workings which is the very idea of it, without which it would be beyond useless in seeking understanding. I also find "circumstantial" semi-accurate, in that it'd probably serve better for distinction between Si and Ni.
What you describe here is how I understand Static "Empowering" Accepting functions to work: they postulate a theory of what goes on behind the scenes rashly before said theory is isolated as the only possible one by the available information on the subject.
When it comes down to it, the Accepting functions are the ones that suffice with superficial information. Its just Static/Accepting that pretends to have a complete view, and Dynamic/Accepting that sticks to what it has available to itself.
Aiss, would you agree with me if I said that Base Pi is about having a perspective on a million of "behind the scenes" entities, and refusing to abandon such broadness of vision by focussing on any of the particulars?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote