Dynamic worldview - static Self. Static worldview - dynamic Self.

[EyeSeeCold]

Dynamic worldview implies a static Self. Static worldview implies a dynamic Self.


What are the resulting implications?

-------------

Ego or information level – “I know"
Superego or social level - “I must"
Super-id or psychological level - “I want"
Id or physical level - “I can"

http://socionics.spb.ru/model_a.html
Block EGO
("Creative block")
Block Superego
(Unit of social control ")
Block SUPERID
(Block of individual activity)
Block ID
(Block of individual control)


http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%...B%D1%8C_%D0%90
Rings
Mental Ring - 1, 2, 3, 4 ("software", "creative", "role" and "pain") - a high degree of awareness. Responsible for the social activity of man.
Vital ring - 5, 6, 7, 8 ("suggestive", "activation", "observation" and "demonstrative") - characterized by a low level of awareness. Responsible for the individual needs of man. Vital ring mirrors aspects of mental block, but in the opposite-vertnosti.


The Vital Ring is a focus on the Self and the Mental Ring is a focus on external Reality.

Dynamic Vital functions = Static Mental functions
Static Vital functions = Dynamic Mental functions


INTp/ILI
Mental Conscious - Dynamic
[Ni, Te, Si, Fe]
These aspects form the way I intently interact with the world

Vital Unconscious - Static
[Se, Fi, Ne, Ti]
These aspects form the ingrained backbone of my identity.

Thus I have a Static unconscious identity. I see my vital aspects as Static.

[Gilly]

Dynamic worldview implies a static Self. Static worldview implies a dynamic Self.


What are the resulting implications?

How are you even assuming this?

[pianosinger]

Yeah, where are you getting this from?

My Mental Ring is Static and Vital Ring is Dynamic. This makes me a Static type, according to the Reinin dichotomies. But, are you referring to this or to something else?

Do I then supposedly have a Static worldview and Dynamic "self," or Static "self" and Dynamic worldview?

[Gilly]

Yeah, if anything I would say that our worldview is based mostly on the first function; after all, it is the lense through which we see the world.

[Creepy-]

Static worldview = Self changes, not the world around someone. The same thing is always there, one just perceives it differently.

I'm not sure about the implications of a Dynamic worldview, or even if the above is correct... the more I think about the implications of Dynamic worldview yielding a Static Self, the more doubts I have towards the whole concept.

I'm not sure if having a Static or Dynamic worldview implies a Dynamic or Static Self, necessarily. Like I said, it doesn't make much sense to me that the Self would change but the worldview would remain the same. That is what I assume you mean from Static Self/Dynamic worldview, anyway...

I think you need to define these concepts for greater clarity, then shall come the critiquing/answers to your question.

[Creepy-]

Yeah, if anything I would say that our worldview is based mostly on the first function; after all, it is the lense through which we see the world.

Worldview is also influenced a lot by the demonstrative function.

[EyeSeeCold]

I guess I've induced confusion by choosing the wrong words. This is what I mean:


1.
Dynamic Mental Consciousness - How you perceive the world
Static Vital Unconsciousness - How you perceive yourself

The world is dynamic yet the self is static. The person feels as if everything is changing but their own self.

2.
Static Mental Consciousness - How you perceive the world
Dynamic Vital Unconsciousness - How you perceive yourself

The world is static yet the self is dynamic. The person feels as if everything is lifeless / motionless and only the person is alive.

[Creepy-]

Ok, so "Self" essentially refers to one's perception towards himself in relation to the world. Understood.

How is the Self perceived in terms of the Vital functions?

[EyeSeeCold]

Ok, so "Self" essentially refers to one's perception towards himself in relation to the world. Understood.

How is the Self perceived in terms of the Vital functions?

The Vital functions are what define us to us, which is why it is vital that those aspects are in suitable condition. If you're a master in your Vital aspects(SuperId+Id), suddenly your perception of the world is not so oppressive.

Also, when their is no active problem, the Self takes the Vital functions for granted.

[Gilly]

You are either literally making this up, or are misinterpreting what Model A is about. The Super-Id operates something like the Lacanian "other," but not exactly; we project our super-id onto other people in the sense that it forms our views and expectations of how others should behave, how we would like others to communicate, but it does not translate into a global worldview in the sense that you are implying.

[Gilly]

Basically you are making classic Ti presumptive leaps. More evidence for Ti dominant.

[EyeSeeCold]

You are either literally making this up, or are misinterpreting what Model A is about. The Super-Id operates something like the Lacanian "other," but not exactly; we project our super-id onto other people in the sense that it forms our views and expectations of how others should behave, how we would like others to communicate, but it does not translate into a global worldview in the sense that you are implying.

I stated Ego+SuperEgo = Worldview. SuperId+Id = Self.

Basically you are making classic Ti presumptive leaps. More evidence for Ti dominant.

lol
Te assumes Ti / reason. Arrogant views.
Ti assumes Te / application. Ignorant views.

[Gilly]

*shrug* You've obviously got your mind set on a number of things, so I'll decline to further this debate. Simply put, making such assumptions which are quite clearly not outlined in Model A and have no obvious root in the essentials of the theory, nor its applications, is nothing more than an exercise in mental wankery.

[EyeSeeCold]

*shrug* You've obviously got your mind set on a number of things, so I'll decline to further this debate. Simply put, making such assumptions which are quite clearly not outlined in Model A and have no obvious root in the essentials of the theory, nor its applications, is nothing more than an exercise in mental wankery.

i.e. You fail to follow my reasoning. Symptomatic of a different configuration.

Don't let that stop you from understanding and collaborating.

[Gilly]

I understand you perfectly well, and I find no statement of, or basis for, your claims anywhere in the theory.

[EyeSeeCold]

I understand you perfectly well, and I find no statement of, or basis for, your claims anywhere in the theory.

It's simple.

When we look out, we do not look in. When we look in, we do not look out. Agreed?

The premise is - is that when you look out and see a Dynamic world, that means you, the observer, are in a Static state. Likewise, when you look out and see a static world, that means you, the observer, are in a Dynamic state.


It makes perfect logical sense, provided that Socionics theory and Dynamic/Static are applicable to reality.

[redbaron]

It's simple.

When we look out, we do not look in. When we look in, we do not look out. Agreed?

The premise is - is that when you look out and see a Dynamic world, that means you, the observer, are in a Static state. Likewise, when you look out and see a static world, that means you, the observer, are in a Dynamic state.


It makes perfect logical sense, provided that Socionics theory and Dynamic/Static are applicable to reality.

disagree. that does not follow, imo.

[Gilly]

You're making logical leaps that are both inconsistent with the nature of what Model A describes, and do not have properly defined parameters to account for the deducitons you are attempting.

http://www.socionics.us/theory.shtml

Have fun starting over. Try not to be an arrogant twit this time.

[EyeSeeCold]

disagree. that does not follow, imo.

Point out the inconsistency.

[Gilly]

YOU ARE WRONG

[EyeSeeCold]

[Gilly]

Awww, he came back with a youtube video. How cute.

Let the ad hominem begin. ******.

[Creepy-male]

Temperament.

IP: nothing has changed so far, but it will, and that's fine. The world/self is seen as changing. Since things outside the self change, the IP adapts, changing themselves.

EP: nothing has changed so far, and that bothers me, I need to change things. The world is seen as mutable, but things haven't changed, so the EP changes them.

IJ: nothing has changed so far, and that's fine, I don't want them to change. The world/self is seen as static, with potential for change; deviations are seen as blips on the radar and things will go back to how they always have been. The IJ rides out the storms and continues as they always have been.

EJ: things are changing, and it's for the worst, so I need to bring things back on track. The world is seen as changing, usually not for the better, so the EJ exerts their Base function to change things to what they're meant to be.

It's a result of the interaction of extraversion/introversion and rational/irrational (and thus static/dynamic). Gilly is right. Go read socionics.us. There's a lot of useful bits and pieces there, which are all fully-functional building blocks for creating theory-kosher complex structures (just look at Gulenko's forms of thought, for instance).

Above taken from Expat through a friend of mine, AFAIA.

[EyeSeeCold]

Temperament.

IP: nothing has changed so far, but it will, and that's fine. The world/self is seen as changing. Since things outside the self change, the IP adapts, changing themselves.

EP: nothing has changed so far, and that bothers me, I need to change things. The world is seen as mutable, but things haven't changed, so the EP changes them.

IJ: nothing has changed so far, and that's fine, I don't want them to change. The world/self is seen as static, with potential for change; deviations are seen as blips on the radar and things will go back to how they always have been. The IJ rides out the storms and continues as they always have been.

EJ: things are changing, and it's for the worst, so I need to bring things back on track. The world is seen as changing, usually not for the better, so the EJ exerts their Base function to change things to what they're meant to be.

It's a result of the interaction of extraversion/introversion and rational/irrational (and thus static/dynamic). Gilly is right. Go read socionics.us. There's a lot of useful bits and pieces there, which are all fully-functional building blocks for creating theory-kosher complex structures (just look at Gulenko's forms of thought, for instance).

Above taken from Expat through a friend of mine, AFAIA.

I agree with this. Though this is not what I am proposing.

As nil said: "Self" essentially refers to one's perception towards himself in relation to the world.

Dynamic outlook implies a stationary Self.
Static outlook implies a moving Self.

It's basic physics - relativity.

[EyeSeeCold]

My proposal is rooted in the Model A.

Perhaps the most important function dichotomy is mental/vital, sometimes called conscious/unconscious. The functions in the mental ring (functions 1, 2, 3, and 4) strive to verbalize information and formulate observations and form the core of the individual's intellectual activity. On the other hand, the functions in the vital ring (functions 5, 6, 7, and 8) tend to manifest themselves without words in the process of doing things or inadvertently in the form of spontaneous sentiments.

The conscious functions can only be all Static or Dynamic, in return, the unconscious function can only be all Dynamic or all Static.

[EyeSeeCold]

The aspects of your life that are vital to your Self, are assumed to be Static or unchanging if you are a Dynamic type.

The aspects of your life that are vital to your Self are assumed to be Dynamic or moving if you are a Static type.

[Creepy-]

The aspects of your life that are vital to your Self, are assumed to be Static or unchanging if you are a Dynamic type.

The aspects of your life that are vital to your Self are assumed to be Dynamic or moving if you are a Static type.

I cannot say whether or not this is consistent with the theory, but it is most certainly consistent with me and my self-typing.

[silke]

lol he has just re-discovered the MBTI judgers vs perceivers

[EyeSeeCold]

lol he has just re-discovered the MBTI judgers vs perceivers

I'm not regarding Pe = P and Je = P. I am only working with Static/Dynamic functions in regards to their position in the Consciousness(Ego+SuperEgo) and Unconsciousness(SuperId+Id).

[redbaron]

The aspects of your life that are vital to your Self

what does that phrase even mean?

[EyeSeeCold]

what does that phrase even mean?

The aspects of your vital functions. SuperId+Id aspects.

For example, I am ILI. The aspects of my life that are vital to my Self are SeFi+TiNe aspects.

[Creepy-male]

Not what Vital means. The Vital ring is defined as the suppressed side of your Mental elements. As such one only processes Vital elements when the environment specifically produces those aspects.

EDIT

You can think of Mental/Vital as Active/Reactive. The HA gets a little bit tricky there though because it requires very little prompt before the individual starts engaging it, but it's almost always used as a response to some external environmental stimulus, even something as minor as someone asking an open-ended question or in some way producing a small piece of that information aspect (cue LIIs and their health/comfort rants at the drop of a pin; or my long-winded analyses of physical and psychological phenomena).

[The Ineffable]

Basically you are making classic Ti presumptive leaps. More evidence for Ti dominant.

That means EyeSeeCold = Ti-Base or Ti-Ego? I actually tend to agree with the latter - opinion accumulated in time.
---

EyeSeeCold: IMO types view both the self and the environment as Dynamic or Static, as the Mental assumes. I can connect this to something I observed long time ago, that Dynamic types can't evaluate themselves but by their deeds, actions or facts, the reason why they need constant assurance from the Static types of their identity, value, "type", etc.

And think about the fact that the Static functions are relational, including regarding the self - "how do I compare/relate to ...?", "what I have in common with ...?", while the Dynamic ones tell how things manifest, affect and interact with each other - "how does ... affect me?", "how do I affect ...?". I don't see a difference being made between self and outside world, unless this "self" you refer to means something different than this common understanding. Also, the Vital ring is unconscious AFAIK, I don't know how it can be part of the awareness of self, too.

[redbaron]

EyeSeeCold: IMO types view both the self and the environment as Dynamic or Static, as the Mental assumes. I can connect this to something I observed long time ago, that Dynamic types can't evaluate themselves but by their deeds, actions or facts, the reason why they need constant assurance from the Static types of their identity, value, "type", etc.

And think about the fact that the Static functions are relational, including regarding the self - "how do I compare/relate to ...?", "what I have in common with ...?", while the Dynamic ones tell how things manifest, affect and interact with each other - "how does ... affect me?", "how do I affect ...?". I don't see a difference being made between self and outside world, unless this "self" you refer to means something different than this common understanding.

this is how I see/experience it too.

[Beautiful sky]

Basically you are making classic Ti presumptive leaps. More evidence for Ti dominant.

He's not. I benefit from his Te, hence benefit relations. I am drawn to the way he explains things because they are clear, simple, concise, efficient, and highly accurate and not on personal subjective evaluation from the function of T...so, it's Te not Ti.

this is how I see/experience it too.

Which part? The one where you can't evaluate yourself?

[Creepy-]

He's not. I benefit from his Te, hence benefit relations. I am drawn to the way he explains things because they are clear, simple, concise, efficient, and highly accurate and not on personal subjective evaluation from the function of T...so, it's Te not Ti.

Really? His descriptions may be concise, but in my experience they are ambiguous/incomplete. I usually need to ask for more information (like on this thread). I can't readily see the paths he take to get to conclusions and he doesn't really define things/really elaborate on what he means...

Maybe that's just me? I think some of his ideas are really good, but he just doesn't provide much information about them...

Then again, I don't very greatly understand anyone on this whole forum...

[Beautiful sky]

Really? His descriptions may be concise, but in my experience they are ambiguous/incomplete. I usually need to ask for more information (like on this thread). I can't readily see the paths he take to get to conclusions and he doesn't really define things/really elaborate on what he means...

Maybe that's just me? I think some of his ideas are really good, but he just doesn't provide much information about them...

Then again, I don't very greatly understand anyone on this whole forum...

Well, Te is efficient not redundant and he is an introvert. Te is very conclusive; deciding. So he may come to these decisions and not really need to elaborate. I get what you mean by paths not taken and how that may not regard Process types. He may be more that way when suggesting what people can do about actual work/action as related to Te..

[EyeSeeCold]

Really? His descriptions may be concise, but in my experience they are ambiguous/incomplete. I usually need to ask for more information (like on this thread). I can't readily see the paths he take to get to conclusions and he doesn't really define things/really elaborate on what he means...

Maybe that's just me? I think some of his ideas are really good, but he just doesn't provide much information about them...

Then again, I don't very greatly understand anyone on this whole forum...

http://www.socioniko.net/en/articles/lytovs-intro3.html

Secondary extraverted logic (the types Critic and Craftsman, XXX-logical introverts)

They may be misperceived for the quasi-identical types (Analyst and Inspector with the dominant introverted logic) for their calm logical emotionless manner of explaining their views, and for certain vital conservatism. However, the difference is, that they do not strive for being consistent and systematic in their thoughts – on the contrary, they strive for adaptation to ever-changing situation, and thus their sayings often look incomplete or vague. Carl Gustav Jung, although some typologists think he was an Analyst, not Critic, wrote in a very vague, ambiguous way, often left his ideas uncompleted, and even his typology was for him just a “by-product”.

[Beautiful sky]

That is accurate ESC (EyeSeeCold). Seeming incomplete or vague comes from being introverted. I still feel the Benefit from you very much. Thank you

[silke]

I'm not regarding Pe = P and Je = P. I am only working with Static/Dynamic functions in regards to their position in the Consciousness(Ego+SuperEgo) and Unconsciousness(SuperId+Id).

If you take a look at types that are called Dynamic, they are all what is called Judgers in MBTI. All of them have an extraverted judging/rational function in the ego and an introverted perceiving/irrational function. Static types are all the types that are called Perceivers in MBTI. All of them have an introverted judging/rational function in the ego in combination with an extraverted perceiving/irrational function. Due to this, what Bolt described below indeed I have observed to happen:

... I can connect this to something I observed long time ago, that Dynamic types can't evaluate themselves but by their deeds, actions or facts, the reason why they need constant assurance from the Static types of their identity, value, "type", etc.

And think about the fact that the Static functions are relational, including regarding the self - "how do I compare/relate to ...?", "what I have in common with ...?", while the Dynamic ones tell how things manifest, affect and interact with each other - "how does ... affect me?", "how do I affect ...?". I don't see a difference being made between self and outside world, unless this "self" you refer to means something different than this common understanding. Also, the Vital ring is unconscious AFAIK, I don't know how it can be part of the awareness of self, too.

And thus one can also say that in MBTI the J/P simply represents the Dynamic/Static type divide in Reinin traits.