light/heavy club members

[Pa3s]

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?

[1981slater]

Heavy --> develop theories, try to convince others, grasp similarities between situations...

Light --> action, immediate results, solve the problem and neglect theoretical models...

[Trevor]

It's the same with pragmatists, socials and humanitarians, too.

What types are heavy?

[Aiss]

It seems the statics of all clubs are considered "heavy" and the dynamics "light".

Statics are said to focus on stable aspects of reality, while dynamics on the flowing, changeable ones.

One thing that jumps out at me is that "light" member of some club is always a dual of "heavy" member of the opposite club, while they conflict with the "light" one. The reverse is true for "heavy" members. This would suggest somehow opposite approaches to what clubs stand for, i.e. "heavy" types could be seen as more serious or intense about it as it's stable for them and they're more attached to it; "light" types are dynamics, who see those aspects as changeable and flexible, but seek stability in complementary elements.

[krieger]

Yeah, just another term for Static/Dynamic. Static = Heavy, Dynamic = Light.

Dynamic is basically a catch word for "shallow" in socionics. It hints at the issues without really penetrating into them or addressing them directly. It deals with the investigatory process or perspective from which the subject is seen rather than with the subject matter itself.

[Pa3s]

Thanks for your answers!

Heavy --> develop theories, try to convince others, grasp similarities between situations...

Light --> action, immediate results, solve the problem and neglect theoretical models...

Is this explanation mainly related to NTs or is it the same with every club?

What types are heavy?

The others already said it, but that's more clear:
heavy socials --> SEE, ESI, light socials --> ESE, SEI
heavy researchers --> ILE, LII, light researchers --> LIE, ILI
heavy pragmatists --> SLE, LSI, light pragmatists --> LSE, SLI
heavy humanitarians --> IEE, EII, light humanitarians --> EIE, IEI

[krieger]

I like the terms Heavy and Light, actually. They fit my ideas of what Static and Dynamic represent quite well.

[Pa3s]

Yeah, they are not bad, but you might not initially know what they exactly mean. Even though I was about right with my first assumption.

[golden]

Interesting how many people's takes on "dynamic" = bad.

[Aiss]

Interesting how many people's takes on "dynamic" = bad.

Yeah, labcoat seems to be alone on this one.

[Trevor]

All things being equal; I'd always pick Dynamics to interact with. They're not as upsetting(or should I say offsetting) as statics or something. All things being equal, again, of course.

[Pa3s]

Interesting how many people's takes on "dynamic" = bad.

Oh, you mean because of the word 'shallow'? I didn't underand it as necessarily bad. Yes, it sounds negative, but sometimes it's better to view things in the 'dynamic' way. It just depends on what you personally prefer.

[FDG]

Oh, you mean because of the word 'shallow'? I didn't underand it as necessarily bad. Yes, it sounds negative, but sometimes it's better to view things in the 'dynamic' way. It just depends on what you personally prefer.

Yeah, as I understand the issue, the world needs both relatively quick "results" and "deep conclusions" about a given matter/social sphere/interaction/activity etc.

[Jonathan]

This is quite ridiculous...It just shows the bad sort of thinking that goes generally goes with how people apply the Reinin dichotomies. What people do in Socionics is notice some sort of dichotomy that they say in real life (IRL), and then try to map it to an existing Socionics dichotomy. So they see that some dichotomy exists IRL, such as that some people are superficial thinkers and others are deep thinkers, and then they say, so what types would that be? ...failing to recognize that the distinction may not be type related.

Naturally, pretty much all of the stuff that goes on this sort of interpretation of dichotomies is aimed to show show the superiority of ILE in particular, LII, and Alpha in general.

So in this case, ILI is "light" but its dual SEE is heavy? Or I suppose the intent is that SEE is heavy only in relation to the SF club?

It really doesn't work though if you look at individuals whom Socionists have typed. There are plenty of famous people listed Gamma NTs who are "deep thinkers" and Alpha NTs who in comparison aren't so theoretical.

Why not just stick with an understanding of what "static" and "dynamic" really mean rather than trying to slap yet another non-type-related distinction on the whole thing and make Socionics muddier than it already is?

[Creepy-male]

My understanding is:

Static--mentally abstracted, dealing with bits and pieces.
Dynamic--mentally immersed, adapting and adjusting "things" as they come in. ("Things" are relationships for Pi, and systems for Ji.)

IOW, Static is analytic, Dynamic is synthetic. I believe credit goes to labcoat for that one, but I don't want to claim he's been saying potentially stupid things

I can compare Si and Ti like that. Ti is piecing together things, having this framework, and connecting either systems of dots, or the dots themselves; Si is an immersed process, adapting myself to a constant stream of stimuli.

Ti is like arranging individual piecewise photographs into a panorama, Si is like watching a YouTube video and deciding when I need to buffer, or change the volume, or the screen settings on my monitor, so that everything is perfectly adapted For Maximal Enjoyment/immersion/whatever.

I still think deep/shallow or heavy/light are potentially bad names though, but that's no grounds for criticising the dichotomy itself. I'm not sure if you are though, Jonathan.

EDIT

I could also see how light/heavy applies to the Socials, and especially from the P.O.V. of one looking at the other.

[Jonathan]

I still think deep/shallow or heavy/light are potentially bad names though, but that's no grounds for criticising the dichotomy itself. I'm not sure if you are though, Jonathan.

My criticisms regarding dichotomies are directed towards interpretations of what the dichotomies mean, not "criticizing the dichotomy." It doesn't make sense to criticize a dichotomy. A dichotomy in Socionics is just subdivision of the types into two subsets. Obviously, the subsets exist.

What I think is wrong, and an overly common type of thinking in Socionics, is seeing some sort of dichotomy of behaviors in IRL and assuming that it maps to a Socionics dichotomy. People do that all the time...they see differences among people, and so they assume it's a quadra thing, or a Reinin dichotomy thing, etc., with really very little evidence to go on. It leads to muddy thinking in my opinion.

In the case of deep/shallow and heavy/light, the dichtomy already has a name....static/dynamic. So inferior names don't even need to be used.

[Azeroffs]

What I think is wrong, and an overly common type of thinking in Socionics, is seeing some sort of dichotomy of behaviors in IRL and assuming that it maps to a Socionics dichotomy. People do that all the time...they see differences among people, and so they assume it's a quadra thing, or a Reinin dichotomy thing, etc., with really very little evidence to go on. It leads to muddy thinking in my opinion.

I support this even though I think I'm guilty of it.

edit:
I do think there may be something to this view of static/dynamic tho.

[silverchris9]

Analysis vs. synthesis (or if you want to put it in more favorable terms for dynamics, catabolic vs. anabolic) is a good comparison for static vs. dynamic. Light and heavy are biased.

[FDG]

It really doesn't work though if you look at individuals whom Socionists have typed. There are plenty of famous people listed Gamma NTs who are "deep thinkers" and Alpha NTs who in comparison aren't so theoretical.

It's not "superficial" thinking or "not theorethical" thinking. MMmm, it's not easy to give an example, either. Think about how Enrico Fermi or Richard Feynman (ENTjs) write their books on physics, and compare to how Brian Greene or Hawking. Fermi was famous for his "back of the envelope" method. Von Neumann (another ENTj) has been quoted with saying "you don't understand mathematics. You just get used to it".

[Jonathan]

It's not "superficial" thinking or "not theorethical" thinking. MMmm, it's not easy to give an example, either. Think about how Enrico Fermi or Richard Feynman (ENTjs) write their books on physics, and compare to how Brian Greene or Hawking. Fermi was famous for his "back of the envelope" method. Von Neumann (another ENTj) has been quoted with saying "you don't understand mathematics. You just get used to it".

Thanks for the examples; this agrees with my point, as I'm not saying that there isn't a difference between static and dynamic; I just don't agree with earlier posts that seem to characterize dynamic as superficial and not theoretical thinking.

Not being a physicist, I'm a little at a disadvantage here, although I did take some Feynman physics textbooks out of the library a long time ago and did learn some of the basics of physics. However, I think comparing Alpha NTs with Gamma NTs leads us more to a discussion of Ti vs. Te, whereas if we're talking about static vs. dynamic, we'd want to show how the observations in Ti- vs. Te-oriented examples also apply to Fi- vs. Fe-oriented examples.

To get some sort of sense of your point, I looked for any book extracts online and found this one by Stephen Hawking, although there's also a co-author listed:

Book Excerpt: Stephen Hawking's 'The Grand Design' - TIME

I'm not sure if it's representative (especially given the co-author), but if Hawking is an example of a static logical type (e.g., ILE), this excerpt is interesting because it challenges the assumption some people may have that the idea of looking at things based on "usefulness" as opposed to some sort of "absolute understanding" is related to Te. (I'm not saying that's what you're saying; I'm just saying that one must certainly go beyond that distinction.)

Although it is not uncommon for people to say Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true. As in the case of the goldfish, one can use either picture as a model of the universe. The real advantage of the Copernican system is that the mathematics is much simpler in the frame of reference in which the sun is at rest.

I would be interested in ideas of what really distinguishes static from dynamic thinkers (both working at a high level), and how that applies to static vs. dynamic feelers.

[Jonathan]

I will mention my own view on the topic though...I think probably the most noticeable difference between statics and dynamics is that dynamics tend to mention changes in viewpoint, whereas statics may compare viewpoints but are less inclined to discuss changes in viewpoint...or if they do, it's part of just getting the point across, whereas it is the material they want to get across that matters. With dynamics, I think there's more of a tendency to view the actual progression involved in the discourse as being the point itself.

For example, if someone said "first I believed [thought, felt, etc.] this, but then I discovered [encountered, etc.] that, which lead to such-and-such," that would lead me to think the person is dynamic. But if the person always has one consistent point and then kind of works around that, I tend to think of that sort of discourse as more static.

Freud's writings seem to be a good example dynamic discourse; they read like mysteries. The process of discovery is part of the point. Plato's dialogues also seem dynamic; it's the back-and-forth, the process of discovery, that's the point. If a textbook then takes Plato's points and tries to make a diagram of them and flesh out some sort of fixed system, that's like translating Plato for static types.

Of course, in some genres of writing, the distinction is harder to make; for example, in fiction, the whole nature of what fiction is makes it dynamic. You can't have a story without things happening and changing. So probably a static type would just tend to keep giving emphasis to various static details that extend beyond the story a whole lot more...

[xerx]

Analysis vs. synthesis (or if you want to put it in more favorable terms for dynamics, catabolic vs. anabolic) is a good comparison for static vs. dynamic. Light and heavy are biased.

Given what you've written, wouldn't the terms 'catabolic' and 'anabolic' themselves suggest that dynamics don't break down information further into more basic constituents, but see any piece of information of arbitrary size as an irreducible building block?


Suppose for arguments sake that you had two lego blocks of different sizes.

Lego Block A [oo] and
Lego Block B [o]

A static type would focus on the fact that [oo] can be broken down into [o] + [o] and that, therefore, [oo] is twice as big as [o]. This is the essence of analysis - breaking things down ('catabolizing' them) into their most basic constituents, understanding their essence, which therefore is the only thing that allows us to formulate a comparison between them. In this case, the basic contituent of both of them is this single unit: [o]. This is Ti or logic of external relationships because we're dealing with strict classification; it would be Fi if the lego blocks represented something ethical or internal, as if we were breaking down two people's values to compare what attracts and what repulses them.

A "synthetic" dynamic IM Element would focus on how the blocks are arranged to get to some pre-destined, desired or necessary end-point: [o][oo], [[o]o], etc. A dynamic IM Element, in this case, wouldn't focus on what the individual blocks are made of, but on how to use them and how they operate together to form the bigger picture, hence "synthetic". It would be odd for it to try to conjure up a singular "essence" because the focus is on how the blocks can be arranged in different ways depending on the context, requirements or day of the week, not on any permanent static value that all the blocks would share.


It's an admittedly imperfect example because we've all played with lego blocks and learned to understand both their static and dynamic aspects (we have the luxury as humans of using all the functions, and of being particularly receptive to all valued ones), so you might need to abstract it to more ambiguous and complex information or to look at intertype-relation-related personality traits, where weak and strong functions do matter, to see the point.

[golden]

My understanding is:

Static--mentally abstracted, dealing with bits and pieces.
Dynamic--mentally immersed, adapting and adjusting "things" as they come in. ("Things" are relationships for Pi, and systems for Ji.)

IOW, Static is analytic, Dynamic is synthetic. I believe credit goes to labcoat for that one, but I don't want to claim he's been saying potentially stupid things

I can compare Si and Ti like that. Ti is piecing together things, having this framework, and connecting either systems of dots, or the dots themselves; Si is an immersed process, adapting myself to a constant stream of stimuli.

Ti is like arranging individual piecewise photographs into a panorama, Si is like watching a YouTube video and deciding when I need to buffer, or change the volume, or the screen settings on my monitor, so that everything is perfectly adapted For Maximal Enjoyment/immersion/whatever.

I still think deep/shallow or heavy/light are potentially bad names though, but that's no grounds for criticising the dichotomy itself. I'm not sure if you are though, Jonathan.

EDIT

I could also see how light/heavy applies to the Socials, and especially from the P.O.V. of one looking at the other.

This makes things clearer, thank you.

[Creepy-male]

How is a "knower" a "user"? I'm not connecting the dots here...

[Singu]

^ I think that's a bit too simple... And I mean no offense, but "SEIs will somehow magically know how"? I mean come on... COME ON! What is that... WHAT IS THAT??

[golden]

^ I think that's a bit too simple... And I mean no offense, but "SEIs will somehow magically know how"? I mean come on... COME ON! What is that... WHAT IS THAT??

I think it means making leaps, that's all. Knowing something without having to go from step A to step B to step C ...

And the implication, from my POV, is that the person who proceeds stepwise needs the person who makes leaps, and vice versa.

[Creepy-male]

Haha, now that you've asked, zero following what you're saying on my end. At all.

[Singu]

Yeah sorry, I was just poking fun. Don't mind me...

[Blaze]

Yeah, just another term for Static/Dynamic. Static = Heavy, Dynamic = Light.

Dynamic is basically a catch word for "shallow" in socionics. It hints at the issues without really penetrating into them or addressing them directly. It deals with the investigatory process or perspective from which the subject is seen rather than with the subject matter itself.

there is a negative connotation to the word shallow though. even though you didn't mean it negatively. sometimes i use the words lateral and vertical instead.

[Creepy-male]

I guess what doesn't make sense is you don't seem to be describing my relationship with ILEs at all

I'm always kinda just the dude who sits around in the background making sure things are puttering along like they should. That's what you mean by box "knower" yes? A basically passive and reactive individual who nonetheless contributes to the functioning of the "box". "Glue" is good in that case.

Then the stuff about fluid realities and potentialities etc... too abstract to be meaningful for me, so I can't really apply personal experience to it, let alone fairly comment or criticise.

Sorry, my brain has only just warmed up.

[Creepy-male]

Okay, I've got it then

EDIT

"Maintainer" for IP then.

[golden]

there is a negative connotation to the word shallow though. even though you didn't mean it negatively. sometimes i use the words lateral and vertical instead.

Better. I use the words "shallow" or "surface" or "package" sometimes to describe what I do best. Such descriptors don't get at my feelings or my thoughts, though. They apply to what kind of action I can successfully undertake and carry out.

Or, if I am responsible for both the lateral and vertical aspects of producing something, let's say ... I conceive of it laterally first, and then I fill in the vertical components, and I will probably seek help with delivering the vertical.

[golden]

Okay, I've got it then

EDIT

"Maintainer" for IP then.

But ... I don't think I could be called a maintainer.

I'm more like an arranger. Not that I'd necessarily dredge up that word to describe myself or my supposed skills set. It arises in response to an already narrowed-down set of possibilities.

[Creepy-male]

Interesting. What would your first pick be, then?

[silverchris9]

Given what you've written, wouldn't the terms 'catabolic' and 'anabolic' themselves suggest that dynamics don't break down information further into more basic constituents, but see any piece of information of arbitrary size as an irreducible building block?


Suppose for arguments sake that you had two lego blocks of different sizes.

Lego Block A [oo] and
Lego Block B [o]

A static type would focus on the fact that [oo] can be broken down into [o] + [o] and that, therefore, [oo] is twice as big as [o]. This is the essence of analysis - breaking things down ('catabolizing' them) into their most basic constituents, understanding their essence, which therefore is the only thing that allows us to formulate a comparison between them. In this case, the basic contituent of both of them is this single unit: [o]. This is Ti or logic of external relationships because we're dealing with strict classification; it would be Fi if the lego blocks represented something ethical or internal, as if we were breaking down two people's values to compare what attracts and what repulses them.

A "synthetic" dynamic IM Element would focus on how the blocks are arranged to get to some pre-destined, desired or necessary end-point: [o][oo], [[o]o], etc. A dynamic IM Element, in this case, wouldn't focus on what the individual blocks are made of, but on how to use them and how they operate together to form the bigger picture, hence "synthetic". It would be odd for it to try to conjure up a singular "essence" because the focus is on how the blocks can be arranged in different ways depending on the context, requirements or day of the week, not on any permanent static value that all the blocks would share.


It's an admittedly imperfect example because we've all played with lego blocks and learned to understand both their static and dynamic aspects (we have the luxury as humans of using all the functions, and of being particularly receptive to all valued ones), so you might need to abstract it to more ambiguous and complex information or to look at intertype-relation-related personality traits, where weak and strong functions do matter, to see the point.

+12. I really like all of that, and it makes quite a bit of sense to me <----Ti valuing.

I don't think it really works for Fi, simply because the process of lego blocks is quite explicit, and Fi is defined by its lack of explicitness. That's why Fi-devaluers are annoyed by Fi IME: it isn't clear or explicable how they made their judgment. You can't tell where it "came from." It just seems random and arbitrary. In reality, there is a deep process that probably has fairly predictable rules (you can abstract large-scale trends), but Fi-egos have trouble explaining to you step-by-step why they came to the like/dislike, ethical/nonethical conclusions they've come to.


Anyway, your post makes me think of a further analogy: final cause vs. formal cause. Aristotle would say that in order to "know" a thing, you have to know material cause (what it's made of), formal cause (roughly, "what it is," or more to the point, what it's inherent properties are), efficient cause (roughly, "what brought it to the state at which it is at this moment), and final cause (what it's made for).

I would say that dynamic elements know more of the final cause (at least, Ni does), and static elements know more of the formal cause (at least, Ti does). So while formal knowledge is quite literally knowledge of the essence of the object, knowledge of the object is not complete without the formal cause. It's like a different kind of essence, insofar as the final cause of a thing (according to Aristotle) is no less integral to the thing than the formal cause.

In fact, they can be seen as two sides of the same coin, insofar as you can divine the final cause from the formal cause (you know the formal cause of the acorn includes the property "it can turn into a tree," therefore you can guess that the final cause is for it to be a tree), and vice versa (you know the final cause of the acorn is for it to be a tree, so you can be pretty sure it has the property "it can turn into a tree.")

[krieger]

It's more like it's the other way around. Dynamics gather all this information as to what is known about a topic from X, Y, Z, etc. perspective but largely neglect piecing the perspectives together to reach a view of that "final form". They postpone the task of jumping from what a thing looks like to what a thing is ad infinitum.

[EyeSeeCold]

 

Analysis vs. synthesis (or if you want to put it in more favorable terms for dynamics, catabolic vs. anabolic) is a good comparison for static vs. dynamic. Light and heavy are biased.

I will mention my own view on the topic though...I think probably the most noticeable difference between statics and dynamics is that dynamics tend to mention changes in viewpoint, whereas statics may compare viewpoints but are less inclined to discuss changes in viewpoint...or if they do, it's part of just getting the point across, whereas it is the material they want to get across that matters. With dynamics, I think there's more of a tendency to view the actual progression involved in the discourse as being the point itself.

For example, if someone said "first I believed [thought, felt, etc.] this, but then I discovered [encountered, etc.] that, which lead to such-and-such," that would lead me to think the person is dynamic. But if the person always has one consistent point and then kind of works around that, I tend to think of that sort of discourse as more static.

Freud's writings seem to be a good example dynamic discourse; they read like mysteries. The process of discovery is part of the point. Plato's dialogues also seem dynamic; it's the back-and-forth, the process of discovery, that's the point. If a textbook then takes Plato's points and tries to make a diagram of them and flesh out some sort of fixed system, that's like translating Plato for static types.

Of course, in some genres of writing, the distinction is harder to make; for example, in fiction, the whole nature of what fiction is makes it dynamic. You can't have a story without things happening and changing. So probably a static type would just tend to keep giving emphasis to various static details that extend beyond the story a whole lot more...

Given what you've written, wouldn't the terms 'catabolic' and 'anabolic' themselves suggest that dynamics don't break down information further into more basic constituents, but see any piece of information of arbitrary size as an irreducible building block?


Suppose for arguments sake that you had two lego blocks of different sizes.

Lego Block A [oo] and
Lego Block B [o]

A static type would focus on the fact that [oo] can be broken down into [o] + [o] and that, therefore, [oo] is twice as big as [o]. This is the essence of analysis - breaking things down ('catabolizing' them) into their most basic constituents, understanding their essence, which therefore is the only thing that allows us to formulate a comparison between them. In this case, the basic contituent of both of them is this single unit: [o]. This is Ti or logic of external relationships because we're dealing with strict classification; it would be Fi if the lego blocks represented something ethical or internal, as if we were breaking down two people's values to compare what attracts and what repulses them.

A "synthetic" dynamic IM Element would focus on how the blocks are arranged to get to some pre-destined, desired or necessary end-point: [o][oo], [[o]o], etc. A dynamic IM Element, in this case, wouldn't focus on what the individual blocks are made of, but on how to use them and how they operate together to form the bigger picture, hence "synthetic". It would be odd for it to try to conjure up a singular "essence" because the focus is on how the blocks can be arranged in different ways depending on the context, requirements or day of the week, not on any permanent static value that all the blocks would share.


It's an admittedly imperfect example because we've all played with lego blocks and learned to understand both their static and dynamic aspects (we have the luxury as humans of using all the functions, and of being particularly receptive to all valued ones), so you might need to abstract it to more ambiguous and complex information or to look at intertype-relation-related personality traits, where weak and strong functions do matter, to see the point.

Excellent posts, all you guys. Today I was sitting outside, pondering, one with the universe, and this thread's discussion entered my consciousness. Most of what I concluded has been said already, but I think I can clarify some points made.

Static functions = Intensively Analytical
Dynamic functions = Extensively Comparative

Everyone operates consciously either statically or dynamically with the 4 functions. So at any point in time, one can appear restricted in a certain area while being experimental in another.

For example, say we have two people with all opposite functions, for comparison. Person A who is +Ti/-Te most likely has a intellectual interest that is intensely studied, the ins and outs of the subject are known and give evidence to its greatness. Person B who is +Te/Ti- comes along and criticizes Person A for being obsessed over one subject and not taking the time to explore other intellectual matters. Person A is offended, as he does care for intellectual quality, rather quality need not be assessed by comparison, but instead, analysis. However, with the same two people. Person A, +Fe/-Fi, will want to have as many friends as possible to consider the best opportunities for enjoyment. Whereas Person B, +Fi/-Fe, will have a more restricted approach to friendship to develop friendships in a vertical way. Person A, previously criticized for limited interests, now criticizes Person B for being a loner. Person B is offended, because friendships are assessed by intensity and thus quantity is relatively irrelevant.

This can be applied to all of the functions, simultaneously, as such, the phenomenon probably tends to cause most of the misunderstanding in daily interactions.

Two occasions I have observed after-the-fact may give evidence to this theory. One is asking someone to get more opinions on Socionics itself to really get a grasp on typing, while they were being unbelievably stubborn. The person turned out to be a +Ti/-Te type. In another case, I criticized my friend for having a limited knowledge of music, rather he appreciated immensely what he already listened to, again +Ti/-Te.

[717495]

For instance, LIE and ILI are light researchers (NT club), while ILE and LII are heavy ones.

Yea

The others already said it, but that's more clear:
heavy socials --> SEE, ESI, light socials --> ESE, SEI
heavy researchers --> ILE, LII, light researchers --> LIE, ILI
heavy pragmatists --> SLE, LSI, light pragmatists --> LSE, SLI
heavy humanitarians --> IEE, EII, light humanitarians --> EIE, IEI

Maybe because some types invest partly more in other clubs.

LII ---> heavy researcher
ILI ---> light researcher ---> lighter humanitarian
ILE ---> heavy researcher
LIE ---> light researcher ---> lighter pragmatist

[EyeSeeCold]

Light and heavy is biased though, it is implied to mean how much consideration is taken to a subject. But it is all a matter of your perspective.

[Pa3s]

Maybe because some types invest partly more in other clubs.

LII ---> heavy researcher
ILI ---> light researcher ---> lighter humanitarian
ILE ---> heavy researcher
LIE ---> light researcher ---> lighter pragmatist

Sounds not bad, are these your own ideas?