light/heavy club members

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.