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

[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.

[EyeSeeCold]

disagree. that does not follow, imo.

Point out the inconsistency.

[Gilly]

YOU ARE WRONG

[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.