Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Some Basic Clarification

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    1 Post(s)
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Some Basic Clarification

    Someone tell me if this is correct...

    Types are either Static or Dynamic.

    Statics think of objects/systems as occupying certain states(EP), the interactions of which are determined by particular rules(IJ).

    Statics either focus on the current state and intention of objects/systems (Se), or the states into which those objects/systems may possibly mutate in accordance with the aforementioned rules (Ne).

    The rules are either designed for consistency, so that rules applied in one instance also apply in others (Ti), or for moral/gut appeal, so that no individually objectionable cases may be deduced via application of said rules (Fi).

    (My understanding of Fi might need some work.)

    Dynamics focus on their own current state (IP) and the actions they are performing (EJ).

    Dynamics either pay more attention to their own conscious state (Si), or their own unconscious sate (Ni).
    (This might warrant explanation. I am unsatisfied with "Ni=mental Si-physical" because Ni POLR does not seem to cause a lack of awareness of mental state. Rather, Si types seem to watch how they feel, mentally and physically, while Ni-egos look more than any type at thoughts floating up from the subconscious, as well as granting more significance than other types to semi-conscious associations of unclear or nonverbal origin.)

    The actions performed can be split into goal-based (Te) and role-based (Fe).
    (I say this because Te types seem to act based on the perceived objective necessity of whatever actions, whereas Fe types seem to act out characters with which they try to function in a consistent manner. Of course, the specific roles being played can change frequently.)

  2. #2
    ILE - ENTp 1981slater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    ILE (ENTp)
    15 Post(s)
    0 Thread(s)

    Default x

    I am a static
    ILE "Searcher"
    Socionics: ENTp
    DCNH: Dominant --> perhaps Normalizing
    Enneagram: 7w6 "Enthusiast"
    MBTI: ENTJ "Field Marshall" or ENTP "Inventor"
    Astrological sign: Aquarius

    To learn, read. To know, write. To master, teach.

  3. #3
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    80 Post(s)
    0 Thread(s)


    Static/Dynamic is both the most important and the least well understood dichotomy in socionics.

    Forget all this crap about static states vs. movements. State vs. transition correlates to P and J respectively, not Static/Dynamic.

    Statics focus on interpretations of symbolic markers while Dynamics focus on the symbolic markers themselves. In a sense, the Dynamics orient more to the surface view of what is observed and are less strongly inclined to infer from observables. they stick to what is capable of being directly registered. this is not incompatible with abstraction or intuition. one can ruminate on what will be observed, for example, or create an expectation of an observation state from abstract qualities.

    when Statics have little warrancy for certainty (Accepting), they are inclined to assert a "complete", perspective-invariant view anyway. to them the lack of certainty only brings about a random factor that renders the answer arbitrary rather than uniquely pertaining to the question. Dynamics are more intellectually honest in this state, simply asserting what they know and have seen rather than ruminating from this.

    when there is increased warrancy for certainty (Creating), Statics are more quickly inclined to make the final leap to a complete answer. Dynamics have a bit of a habit of postponing the finalization of the verdict. They see it as a challenge to keep refining the view rather than to lock a "good enough" view down as an edifice to build forth on.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts