light/heavy club members

[krieger]

Basically the Heavy types like to directly address and confront the subject matter. Light types mostly only circle around the issues and make implications towards them.

[Creepy-male]

But how does that work for Socials or Pragmatists?

[EyeSeeCold]

But how does that work for Socials or Pragmatists?

Heavy Socials will confront the matter directly, just like heavy Researchers. Light Socials will beat around the bush or bounce around the issue, only touching on the boundaries. Friends is the easiest way to picture it, but I think social gatherings can expose the differences also. Light Socials may only want to gauge the moods of people and make sure everything "appears" satisfactory. Whereas heavy Socials may personally get involved with each person, closing the psychological (and perhaps physical) distance between them.

With Pragmatists, I'm not sure, but it seems the heavy party will get down to the core issue of things. Analyzing the situation from all fronts. While the light party will compare situations and acknowledge the ones that seem important and the ones that don't.

[717495]

Sounds not bad, are these your own ideas?

The specific idea is, I don't know about the general idea. There might be some kind of link to Ganin's proposal that irrationals are more both F and T, and rationals are more both S and N (which was a typing help guide that I never was able to verify). A large part was just LIEs because of Te dominant seem more pragmatic to me and my own experience with ILIs being softies and kind of humanitarian (or perhaps a better word in my case is NF - idealist type) in a detached Fi way, I don't know about any of the other types as of now.

[EyeSeeCold]

I don't know how to organize it, but everyone is light or heavy something on a two dimensional scale.

[Deicide Mars]

I wondered what's the difference between light and heavy club members. Wikisocion is actually the only place where I've read of them. For instance, LIE and ILI are light researchers (NT club), while ILE and LII are heavy ones. It's the same with pragmatists, socials and humanitarians, too. Why is that? What makes the difference?

I can only give an opinion through my judgements and some thinking about myself and my experience on alpha researchers. I'm speaking as a gamma researcher(ILI critic). I am insulted by other comments on dynamic researchers so I thought I could share my interpretation. I will start with some examples. Ne searches for all possibilities with no connections to the real world, Ni searches only those connected to the real world by reflecting on previous events to predict only the most likely outcome. Ti logic accepts and is comfortable with purely abstract theories with no connection to reality, but Te only finds harmony with theories connected to the real world making it more practical. That hints out the fact that static researchers are confident with purely abstract ideas and dynamic researchers are comfortable with abstractions connected with the real world. All researchers are abstract, but the distinction lies in where the heavy emphasis is on. Statics place heavy emphasis on their abstract world with no consideration of the real world , but the dynamics places heavy emphasis on the real world instead of pure abstractions thus making them lightly focused on abstractions. Static advantages- Statics are not limited by the real world, therefore they have a broad focus on their imagination, thus the can come up with brilliant abstact theories and ideas, they take the mathematical or philosophical approach to life. Static disadvantages- The heavy focus on abstractions makes them unproductive, they also have a high chance in believing and religiously following false abstractions which are light years from the bounds of reality. Dynamic advantages- Dynamics find interest in abstracions connected to the real world thus they have lower chances in believing false theories and wasting time on non-realistic ideas, they connect their ideas with the real world which can make them more successful, they take the scientific approach to life. Dynamic disadvantages- Dynamics can be narrow minded in rejection of ideas.

It makes sense in my case, I'm starting my journey in theoretical physics, ideas like string theory and relativity all make pure sense with no ifficulty to me, but they exhaust me because they are highly abstract, so I rather quantum mechanics, and I even developed my own theory but I lack the math to complete it because my highest qualification is matric and I'm just starting my bsc physics. So tell me I'm shallow and not a deep thinker. All researchers are deep thinkers, they just differ in what they find more important, the abstract vs reality conflict that's all.

[The Exception]

What about Se base types? They are static types and yet they are very focused on the real world.

[Deicide Mars]

Exactly, N and T are abstract, S and F are inabstract. My post was focused on researchers, but I can try to answer your question. Se base types are inabstract and static, therefore you use the same principle as with the abstract, Se places heavy emphasis on the real world because it is inabstract. Si types don't place heavy emphasis on the real world, they also feel comfort with abstractions to find total harmony and comfort, things like meditation, music and harmonious thoughts are valued. For the inabstract, try using the reverse.

[The Reality Denialist]

I think it is more about imposing your pragmatical/socialite views. It is not hard to find Se types in leading positions for example.

Delta NFs. They seem to be quite unnoticeable to a public. What is exactly going on with them? I must admit that I have very little clue what is exactly going on in humanism.

I was reading another day about great division between humanism and science departments. The years I spent on my studies I must say that I never went to see the "dark" side. Few days ago I went into humanistic department library. It looked bit different....

[Exodus]

What about Se base types? They are static types and yet they are very focused on the real world.

Good point. I would say these names don't make much sense but there is no context as to what article this originally came from, who came up with it, or what it is supposed to mean. It sounds like a dual-type theory (tcaudilllg) thing.

Most ideas about the static/dynamic dichotomy are pretty half-baked at best.