Static vs Dynamic

[Mechman]

So, I've been trying to figure out which of these I am and came up with a scenario that bugged me a lot when I was younger and it seems like it involves static vs. dynamic reasoning. It involves 2 sides but I can't pin which is static and which is dynamic, so I was hoping you guys could clarify.

When I was younger I'd always get frustrated with situations, like in the Disney movie Brink(friggin sweet movie, btw): Basically a guy throws some rocks on the inside of a turn during an inline skating street race. He tells his teammate to go around the outside of that specific corner, but doesn't tell him why, then during the race, the opposing team member gets wrecked going through that corner and then proceeds to pin the blame on the racer(who didn't know) and not the dude who threw the rocks on the track in the first place(even though they knew he did it).

That one scenario, I could never wrap my mind around. How in the world can you blame the racer, who didn't do it and didn't even know the circumstances until it was too late, instead of the dude who set the whole thing up?

Another scenario(hypothetical): Guy A asks guy B to lend him a bat. Guy B lends guy A the bat and guy A proceeds to smash guy C's windshield. Guy C then blames guy B for the whole thing. I never got that...it's not like guy B gave guy A the bat knowing that he was gonna smash the dudes windshield.

I'm thinking that my reasoning is more dynamic because I'm not just looking at, A+B=C...I'm looking at the in between, how stuff developed and not just , "you gave him the bat and he smashed my windshield so it's your fault." Not sure though.

Just hoping you guys could give some insight.

Edit: And if I'm completely off, feel free to tell me. I'd rather get clear insight on this rather than tossing around a bunch of ideas in my head that are hogwash.

[Saberstorm]

I think you are completely off. A static thinker attempts to translate a dynamic event into distinct phases. From here, the static will attempt an analysis of these phases without reguard to place and motion. The dynamic sees the phases, but does not attempt analysis, but instead engages in a type of dynamic navigation - asking who, what, when, and where?

Imagine a static and a dynamic go to a baseball game.

The static sees the game as a battle between the batter and the pitcher. He breaks down the batter's technique into steps - the wind up, the swing, the hit and the run. He is asking how well did he wind up and swing? The static is very technical. He might not even care who is at bat. He might not care about the score, inning or anything about the teams. All he notices is the batter's technique. He might even seem a little distracted by the idea that a baseball game is being played.

The dynamic is mostly aware of who is at bat, what is the score, when he hit the ball and where the ball went. The dynamic wants to know how many bases the batter ran, who intercepted the ball, who stole a base, who made it to home plate, who is the batter up, and what the inning is. He cares less about the technique, and more about the whole team making runs.

I think your examples are dyanmic examples - there is more than one person in your snapshots, and you seem to be following the action in a who what where manner.

[Mechman]

I think you are completely off. A static thinker attempts to translate a dynamic event into distinct phases. From here, the static will attempt an analysis of these phases without reguard to place and motion. The dynamic sees the phases, but does not attempt analysis, but instead engages in a type of navigation - asking who, what, when, and where?

Imagine a static and a dynamic go to a baseball game.

The static sees the game as a battle between the batter and the pitcher. He breaks down the batter's technique into steps - the wind up, the swing, the hit and the run. He is asking how well did he wind up and swing? The static is very technical. He might not even care who is at bat.

The dynamic is mostly aware of who is at bat, what is the score, when he hit the ball and where the ball went, and how many bases the batter ran, who intercepted the ball, who stole a base, who made it to home plate, who is the batter up, and what the inning is. He cares less about the technique, and more about the whole team making runs.

Hmm..so more or less, static is detailed, local focus while dynamic is more generalized and global focus; static being like snapshots and dynamic being like a video recording?

[Saberstorm]

Yes, that is my understanding of it.

[ashlesha]

its late and i'm tired but i feel like typing something about this now. maybe i'll edit tomorrow when i realize it sucks. cuz for some reason even tho its pretty abstract and i usually find it difficult to place myself in these kinds of dichotomies the static thing is really easy for me to identify with.

the op stuff sounds pretty normal, like its kinda shitty to blame someone for something that isn't their fault. i think saberstorm is actually kinda on to something but i quoted his post and started crossing stuff out to tweak it more to my liking and it ended up having more crossed out than i thought it would at first. - k yeah i saw your response while i was previewing this and you got the important stuff out of it so YEAH that.

when i think about my life its more natural and easy for me to think about it in discrete phases. the roughly 7-9 phase when i had a bad perm and my teachers loved me. the roughly 10-12 phase when i lived with my mom and things were crazy. the roughly 22-25 phase, etc. things are frozen and they can be unwrapped but it takes more work to unwrap them than it does to wrap them. they come pre-wrapped. my impression is that dynamics see things outside of these packages and that it takes effort to wrap them up instead of the other way around.

[Mechman]

Yes, that is my understanding of it.

Any idea as to what I was describing in my OP then?

Edit:

its late and i'm tired but i feel like typing something about this now. maybe i'll edit tomorrow when i realize it sucks. cuz for some reason even tho its pretty abstract and i usually find it difficult to place myself in these kinds of dichotomies the static thing is really easy for me to identify with.

the op stuff sounds pretty normal, like its kinda shitty to blame someone for something that isn't their fault. i think saberstorm is actually kinda on to something but i quoted his post and started crossing stuff out to tweak it more to my liking and it ended up having more crossed out than i thought it would at first. - k yeah i saw your response while i was previewing this and you got the important stuff out of it so YEAH that.

when i think about my life its more natural and easy for me to think about it in discrete phases. the roughly 7-9 phase when i had a bad perm and my teachers loved me. the roughly 10-12 phase when i lived with my mom and things were crazy. the roughly 22-25 phase, etc. things are frozen and they can be unwrapped but it takes more work to unwrap them than it does to wrap them. they come pre-wrapped. my impression is that dynamics see things outside of these packages and that it takes effort to wrap them up instead of the other way around.

For whatever reason, I can't seem to relate either of your examples to my personal experience. It's almost like whichever category I fall in to comes so naturally that I can't see it for myself. Any time I try to really figure out which I relate to, I feel like I'm trying to comprehend infinity or something. Just ain't workin.

[Saberstorm]

I think you are trying to show a dynamic view of an event, and you are comparing it to a static view of the same event, but the static observer was in both cases making a mistake.

[ashlesha]

For whatever reason, I can't seem to relate either of your examples to my personal experience. It's almost like whichever category I fall in to comes so naturally that I can't see it for myself. Any time I try to really figure out which I relate to, I feel like I'm trying to comprehend infinity or something. Just ain't workin.

lol its np that's how i feel about most socionics dichotomies. i think i must be super static or something.

i'm not sure if i could attribute what you describe in the op to any type. i can see some se-base types i've known reacting to the first person they noticed but i can't imagine anyone blaming the wrong person even if they knew exactly what happened, that's just dumb lol.

[Mechman]

I think you are trying to show a dynamic view of an event, and you are comparing it to a static view of the same event, but the static observer was in both cases making a mistake.

Yeah, that's what I was meaning to do. I was more or less asking, "Which point of view is static and which point of view is dynamic?"

So you're thinking my point of view is dynamic?

[Saberstorm]

yeah

[ashlesha]

in the baseball bat example my assumption would probably be that guy c had some beef with guy b before anything even happened. but that's probably irrelevant idk. to sleep!

edit: also i'm pretty sure saberstorm is wrong but he's not making much sense so idk

[Mechman]

lol its np that's how i feel about most socionics dichotomies. i think i must be super static or something.

i'm not sure if i could attribute what you describe in the op to any type. i can see some se-base types i've known reacting to the first person they noticed but i can't imagine anyone blaming the wrong person even if they knew exactly what happened, that's just dumb lol.

I think it goes deeper than, "blaming the wrong person." Because my dad in the same situation, agreed with the person I disagreed with. It's a point of view thing. I'm just trying to figure out what it relates to and which side I'm on.

Still trying to figure out my type, so I'm hoping this may give me another clue as to what it might be.

[silke]

Another scenario(hypothetical): Guy A asks guy B to lend him a bat. Guy B lends guy A the bat and guy A proceeds to smash guy C's windshield. Guy C then blames guy B for the whole thing. I never got that...it's not like guy B gave guy A the bat knowing that he was gonna smash the dudes windshield.

I'm thinking that my reasoning is more dynamic because I'm not just looking at, A+B=C...I'm looking at the in between, how stuff developed and not just , "you gave him the bat and he smashed my windshield so it's your fault." Not sure though.

You're looking at progression of events, trying to make a static inference from what you've observed: A → B → C → D therefore "B is at fault" which does sound like dynamic progression of thought.

For comparison, this was written by a girl who types as ENTp, and she describes herself seeing the road as separate scenes and having trouble connecting these scenes together into one continuous storyline. This is what you would expect with static EP perception (her subtype is likely Ti-ILE since this description sounds strongly static-y to me).

Though my IQ is fine overall -- just to reassure people, and myself! lol -- I have what seems to be a lack in my brain that I've been wondering is related to a function. When I'm driving in the car, I don't, and can't, have a running record in my mind of everything I've seen. When I'm in the mountains, for example, I'll see a scene with tall grass and flowers, next jumping to a scene of a mountain with a cloud hovering right above, then jumping to another scene and another, next to me, in front of me, on one side of the road, then maybe on the other. Each scene is separate from every other scene so I can never get a feel for the drive as a whole, only unseparated scenes. It gets as crazy as after having driven a 10-mile stretch of highway hundreds of times, I still don't grasp it as a whole, only as parts, and I don't know where the curves in the road will be, what specifically will be around the next curve, and what the relationship is of each scene to another. It means every drive is entirely different than the one before and the one after because each time I'm looking at different scenes a little differently in a different order, so I never get tired of the drive. My INTp husband has the road memorized after one or two drives and is bored from then on out. If I write down the drive in words, I can memorize the words and from then on I'll know where things are located before I get to them, rather than having whatever is coming up be a mystery. I recognize the drive as a whole, as in I'm not lost, I just can't say what specifically will be coming up next. This also happens even if the drive is only a mile long and I've driven it hundreds of times. I also had trouble with organic chemistry because it's hard for me to grasp physical patterns and keep them in my mind.

[Absurd]

Joys of soconics, leading people onto an answer expecting the exact same one in return. The quantity which must be multiplied by, divided by, added to or subtracted from the answer you get to give the answer you should have got.

[717495]

I found a pretty decent explanation on static/dynamic from one user here. I think you will take a lot from it, ie. especially near the end.

[Gilly]

You're looking at progression of events, trying to make a static inference from what you've observed: A → B → C → D therefore "B is at fault" which does sound like dynamic progression of thought.

For comparison, this was written by a girl who types as ENTp, and she describes herself seeing the road as separate scenes and having trouble connecting these scenes together into one continuous storyline. This is what you would expect with static EP perception (her subtype is likely Ti-ILE since this description sounds strongly static-y to me).

Weird, that's the opposite of the reason biology was so easy for me: I could always imagine the interconnected systems, what feeds into what, etc. When I drive roads enough I could probably do them with my eyes closed...lol. In fact if I think back on the road I used to take to work every day, I could probably make the whole drive appear in my head from the perspective of the driver like a played out fast-forward sequence.

[ashlesha]

thats crazy awesome to me, how dynamic thinking is described. like you guys have access to a different plane lol.

[Gilly]

Yeah I dunno...it's like for me I have to have a contiguous picture of everything.

For example in Boston, there is this one intersection that, before I moved near the city, I had only been through a couple of times, and in my mind it had a certain feel based on how I saw it connecting to the other roads in the city. But when I started frequenting that area, and came to see all of the other roads around it, and actually knew and understood from a first person POV how everything was connected and where other things were in relation to that intersection, it took on this entirely different character in my mind...it's hard to explain, but yeah...everything in my head has to be connected to something else for me to make sense of it and have a real grasp of it.

Like when I give people directions, I try to put myself in the shoes of the person who is driving, tell them what they will see and stuff, rather than just saying "do this do that and this and then you're there." In order to access the directions in my mind, I have to kind of do the drive in my mind; I can't just make it a list like "turn right then left then straight."

[Gilly]

There's a similar kind of feel to how I work when I do physical labor. Like when I was a barista, the way its usually done when stuff is really busy is to have one person steam milk while the other prepares shots of espresso. But for me, I could never work with another person, because when I had control of the bar and I got into the zone it was like I became this machine, like my consciousness dissolved and I just kind of threw myself into this frenzy where I could go as fast or slow as I need to, but I HAD to do the full process that was programmed in my mind. I had every step so well honed and perfectly timed that it simply couldn't be done faster, even with two people. So no matter how busy it got I could hold the bar by myself, but it was so aggravating to work with another person because it meant I had to pay attention to everything and watch myself instead of just dissolving into the process and letting it all happen. It's harder for me to work slowly than it is for me to work fast for this exact reason: there's just this certain rhythm that my body functions optimally at, and if I can put it in that rhythm, I can go forever, my energy never decreases, only keeps escalating. But if I have to slow down, I get aggravated and I lose steam and just kind of feel like giving up.

[redbaron]

I found a pretty decent explanation on static/dynamic from one user here. I think you will take a lot from it, ie. especially near the end.

thanks. you just completely wasted one minute of my life.

[Gilly]

So... back to EIE now?

I dunno, does that sound like EIE?

[redbaron]

Like when I give people directions, I try to put myself in the shoes of the person who is driving, tell them what they will see and stuff, rather than just saying "do this do that and this and then you're there." In order to access the directions in my mind, I have to kind of do the drive in my mind; I can't just make it a list like "turn right then left then straight."

that sounds sensing to me though. I don't necessarily NOTICE the details, but I know how it FEELS, if that makes sense. For instance, if I drive somewhere once and then lose the directions (well, I have a GPS, but back before we had such things), I would usually be able to find the place again by following my nose. I wouldn't be able to tell anyone else how to do it because I forget things like names of streets and specific stores as markers. But when I'm actually sitting in the car, driving the route, I know that it either feels right, or feels wrong. I know how long it felt to drive a particular stretch of street, for example. And I know the angle of the turn, or the width of the road or the fact that there were no trees. But I don't have all of that information stored in my head such that I could pull it out of thin air and tell someone else. I have to be there in person and experience it in order for everything to come together.

[anndelise]

There's a similar kind of feel to how I work when I do physical labor. Like when I was a barista, the way its usually done when stuff is really busy is to have one person steam milk while the other prepares shots of espresso. But for me, I could never work with another person, because when I had control of the bar and I got into the zone it was like I became this machine, like my consciousness dissolved and I just kind of threw myself into this frenzy where I could go as fast or slow as I need to, but I HAD to do the full process that was programmed in my mind. I had every step so well honed and perfectly timed that it simply couldn't be done faster, even with two people. So no matter how busy it got I could hold the bar by myself, but it was so aggravating to work with another person because it meant I had to pay attention to everything and watch myself instead of just dissolving into the process and letting it all happen. It's harder for me to work slowly than it is for me to work fast for this exact reason: there's just this certain rhythm that my body functions optimally at, and if I can put it in that rhythm, I can go forever, my energy never decreases, only keeps escalating. But if I have to slow down, I get aggravated and I lose steam and just kind of feel like giving up.

This is referring to Procedural Memory.
Procedural Memory is useful in relieving the mind from having to attend to every little detail in our world. Working with another person interrupts that Procedural Memory, which pulls you out of the subconscious actions, forcing you into consciously attending to what's going on.

http://www.positscience.com/human-br...mplicit-memory

Procedural Memory
Procedural memory is the type of implicit memory that enables us to carry out commonly learned tasks without consciously thinking about them. It's our "how to" knowledge. Riding a bike, tieing a shoe and washing dishes are all tasks that require procedural memory. Even what we think of as "natural" tasks, such as walking, require procedural memory. Though we can do such tasks fairly easily, it's often hard to verbalize exactly how we do them. Procedural memory likely uses a different part of the brain than episodic memory—with brain injuries, you can lose one ability without losing the other. That's why a person who has experienced amnesia and forgets much about his or her personal life often retains procedural memory: how to use a fork or drive a car, for example.

Also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procedural_memory

Procedural memory is memory for how to do things. Procedural memory guides the processes we perform and most frequently resides below the level of conscious awareness. When needed, procedural memories are automatically retrieved and utilized for the execution of the integrated procedures involved in both cognitive and motor skills; from tying shoes to flying an airplane to reading. Procedural memories are accessed and used without the need for conscious control or attention. Procedural memory is a type of long-term memory and, more specifically, a type of implicit memory. Procedural memory is created through "procedural learning" or, repeating a complex activity over and over again until all of the relevant neural systems work together to automatically produce the activity. Implicit procedural learning is essential to the development of any motor skill or cognitive activity.

[ashlesha]

that sounds sensing to me though. I don't necessarily NOTICE the details, but I know how it FEELS, if that makes sense. For instance, if I drive somewhere once and then lose the directions (well, I have a GPS, but back before we had such things), I would usually be able to find the place again by following my nose. I wouldn't be able to tell anyone else how to do it because I forget things like names of streets and specific stores as markers. But when I'm actually sitting in the car, driving the route, I know that it either feels right, or feels wrong. I know how long it felt to drive a particular stretch of street, for example. And I know the angle of the turn, or the width of the road or the fact that there were no trees. But I don't have all of that information stored in my head such that I could pull it out of thin air and tell someone else. I have to be there in person and experience it in order for everything to come together.

this is how I think of si.
I do the same thing sometimes like with telephone numbers I have to move my thumb around like I'm dialing it to remember.

when it comes to directions I go by landmarks but sometimes they're kind of random and I can't convey it well, like the building with plants in front of it and that sidewalk with lots of cracks and take a left on the corner where that guy stands with a homeless sign sometimes. not exactly helpful from an outsiders perspective so sometimes I just end up saying I don't know even though I could get there myself.

[Mechman]

I'm thinking static vs. dynamic could be explained using a house or a building as an example, if I'm understanding it right.

A static would view a house room by room, "Bathroom, Guest Bedroom, Family room, Living room, Kitchen."

Whereas a dynamic would still have those classifications, but they'd view it more as one fluid structure, rather than piece by piece. Using a feature from a video game I played as an example, it's like there's a constant line running through the entire house. That'd be the main line that runs through all of the general areas of the house. That main line then branches off as it passes each room, creating secondary lines that are all connected to the main line. So when you look at it as a whole, it's one fluid structure, not segmented.

Another example may be like how video games implement their loading screens. For example, you have a hallway and a number of doors. Static would be like those games that have a loading screen each time you try to walk through a door, all of which are closed. You get a very segmented/snapshot feel. "This is the hallway, this is room A, this is room B." Whereas Dynamic would likely have all of the doors open without loading screens, so it feels more fluid and wholesome.

Just a thought, could be wrong.

[Radio]

I'm thinking static vs. dynamic could be explained using a house or a building as an example, if I'm understanding it right.

A static would view a house room by room, "Bathroom, Guest Bedroom, Family room, Living room, Kitchen."

Whereas a dynamic would still have those classifications, but they'd view it more as one fluid structure, rather than piece by piece. Using a feature from a video game I played as an example, it's like there's a constant line running through the entire house. That'd be the main line that runs through all of the general areas of the house. That main line then branches off as it passes each room, creating secondary lines that are all connected to the main line. So when you look at it as a whole, it's one fluid structure, not segmented.

Another example may be like how video games implement their loading screens. For example, you have a hallway and a number of doors. Static would be like those games that have a loading screen each time you try to walk through a door, all of which are closed. You get a very segmented/snapshot feel. "This is the hallway, this is room A, this is room B." Whereas Dynamic would likely have all of the doors open without loading screens, so it feels more fluid and wholesome.

Just a thought, could be wrong.

no this is good!

[The Ineffable]

The static is very technical. He might not even care who is at bat. He might not care about the score, inning or anything about the teams. All he notices is the batter's technique.

On the contrary, who is at bat and the teams are what Static deals with. The techniques, the actions and the movements are what Dynamic does.

In a battle, the tactic needs to use a combination of the two, but while Static is concerned with the arrangement, the type of troops, the location, and so on - *at the beginning* of the battle. Static deals with the objects, their identification and classification. If the empirical bodies are not identified and analyzed at all, all you can tell is that "something happens" or something does something. So if you find out that it's player no. 5 at bat, ignoring the Static aspect of that data, you will just see players, just a man at the bat and another at a certain distance from the first base. Wihtout Static information you can't tell anything about them but just what you witnessed, you can't make relationships between them - eg "the player at bat runs faster than the one at base one" - even if you witnessed them racing against each other in straight line and one clearly won. That is because only Static information puts the facts into the objects as attributes. Facts are just facts, they reveal no persistent properties or relations between the objects involved. But when I cast a property of speed in each player, and other similar properties, I'm doing a persistent classification which is not possible but as Static information.

The Dynamic part tells us what happens, what could happen or what *should happen* for the objects to go from a certain state into another. For instance we know that in order for the home player to reach the base, he has to strike the ball sufficiently hard, and to ran so fast that he can get there before the ball is brought back and the field player comes at the place. But it tells nothing about what each player *should be* (faster, stronger). There's no such thing, again, Dynamic.

It is hard to make the distinction between Dynamic and Static data because one is always implicit in the other. Like I said before, the Static distinction of objects make it imposible to tell relevant Dynamic knowledge, however, it may happen in real life! "I've seen something (happening), but I don't know what it was" - apart for knowing it was something visible, you can't tell anything about the type of objects or the type of occurence you witnessed [1]. On the other hand, Static information involves the assumption that some occurences have been witnessed, that something has happened to make one believe the so-called properties.

Objects (identifications), in my opinions, are generated by the mind, only after a period of consistent pattern-matching (uniformity) has passed, the same cluster of stimuli have occured together for a while. If this happens, we say we identify an object; if it's just temporary, we say we just witnessed a state. If my car is red, redness makes part of the concept (of the object) "my car" because of its persistence. If my car is wet, that is just a state, it's an occurance of an event (becoming wet). There is no way to tell where one ends and the other begins, it's all a subjective matter of perspective - though for example Dynamic types are inclined to ignore labeling that Static types do, in favor of a simpler, and more objective statement of facts (state of things), as much as possible.

We can't say though that a Dynamic type necessarily views the matter at hand as "my car is currently red" while a Static type seeing it as "redness is an intrinsic property of my car", because this is a concrete case which depends on the person and on the circumstances. It would be as ridiculous as Stratjevskaya's claim that ESI and Mafia are incompatible, failing to explain how an ESI born in such an organization would behave. Besides, all humans can see all these aspects of reality, the strengths and blind spots of the types don't come from concrete simple cases, but from their inclinations which determine most of their premises for building their lasting complex world-views. So to speak, my current view on drumming may be remotely based on assumptions such as that stones are persistent objects, not just temporary states of sand, even if I'll look into this philosophical question, I might not decide to an answer. We can see this difference when we compare Ti types with Te types; the former aim for finding out what is possible and impossible, justified by a structural view of the world as objects and a necessity to place everything under a universal law, while the latter rather dismiss these notions (of "possible" and especially "impossible") altogether, having a wait'n'see attitude, refusing to have definitive expectations from the experience, which is precisely what continuously updates their knowledge [2].
---

[1] - IMO that is a case where one can only use Te, fully empirical mind process, as nothing rational is currently developed regarding the event. And also I believe that this is the way toddlers see things, they have first to make inner associations by means of attunement (Fi, which is dependent on Te), only after that they can tell what they are witnessing. Other IEs can activate only later, IMO, like Fe (the subjective limitation of experience to a bounded sample for having reliable - though formal - certainty) and Ti (consistent relations in their entirety - dependent on Fe, selected experience).
[2] - the idea is that when it comes to completeness, External IEs (S, T) necessitate full coverage (they imbue the aim of looking further) where Internal (N, F) extrapolate from a "sufficient" amount of information after a "saturating" period of not finding exceptions from the pattern-matching.

[The Ineffable]

Reading this explanation myself, I see how hard it is to understand, especially for someone that has no preparation for these concepts it deals with. But the idea is very simple, I could try to explain it differently, perhaps narrowing it down to something easier to fathom, that just rings the bell, if someone wants it...

[Taknamay]

In my opinion, the dichotomy is less reliable than the individual function. When self-typing, I essentially went through a process of elimination. "I am not nor therefore I cannot be dynamic."

[strangeling]

We can't say though that a Dynamic type necessarily views the matter at hand as "my car is currently red" while a Static type seeing it as "redness is an intrinsic property of my car", because this is a concrete case which depends on the person and on the circumstances. It would be as ridiculous as Stratjevskaya's claim that ESI and Mafia are incompatible, failing to explain how an ESI born in such an organization would behave. Besides, all humans can see all these aspects of reality, the strengths and blind spots of the types don't come from concrete simple cases, but from their inclinations which determine most of their premises for building their lasting complex world-views. So to speak, my current view on drumming may be remotely based on assumptions such as that stones are persistent objects, not just temporary states of sand, even if I'll look into this philosophical question, I might not decide to an answer.We can see this difference when we compare Ti types with Te types; the former aim for finding out what is possible and impossible, justified by a structural view of the world as objects and a necessity to place everything under a universal law, while the latter rather dismiss these notions (of "possible" and especially "impossible") altogether, having a wait'n'see attitude, refusing to have definitive expectations from the experience, which is precisely what continuously updates their knowledge [2].

I really like what you said here. After studying philosophical paradoxes and the similar paradoxes inherent in quantum physics, I eventually came to the conclusion that the world is undefined and our experience of it, defines it. Thus someone who looks to find some structure or order to the world will both find and create it. Someone who sees no order to the world will both find and create it. I then believe this is the ontological basis for these concepts that you are talking about and it seems that's what you were getting at, even if you don't believe that exactly.

It would be interesting to see what you'd say about Fi and Fe.

[Hays]

That's interesting what Tackk highlighted above from The Ineffable's post about TI & Te because if true then that would make me very much a Te user...not much of a Ti...