Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 81 to 120 of 136

Thread: Reinin Dichotomies: Static/Dynamic

  1. #81
    ._. Aiss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    TIM
    IEI
    Posts
    2,009
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I like those better (from wikisocion):

    Static vs. dynamic

    Static information is discrete and about things that change abruptly:
    discrete temporal phases and sets of discrete alternatives
    discrete logical and structural dependencies between states of affairs.
    discrete spatial boundaries that delineate territory and control.
    discrete types of interpersonal relationships, such as "friend" or "enemy".

    Dynamic information is continuous and about things that are in constant fluctuation:
    one's continuous physical exchanges with one's environment.
    the continuous excitations in people's psychological states.
    the continuous evolution of things over time.
    the continuous incoming stream of objective facts about the world.

    Though I wouldn't use it for typing anyway, it's information aspects rather than elements.

  2. #82
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    8,313
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Yeah, that's not bad aiss ^

  3. #83
    Sauron, The Great Enemy ArchonAlarion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    TIM
    Yet to be determined
    Posts
    4,411
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by polikujm View Post


    Yeah, that's not bad ass ^



    *This article explains some basics about static/dynamic and shows the amount of emphasis Aushra put on them:
    http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p...ion_metabolism
    The end is nigh

  4. #84
    Breaking stereotypes Suz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    On a chatbox diet
    TIM
    ESI maybe
    Posts
    6,479
    Mentioned
    173 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Krig the Viking View Post
    I think of it as being similar to the difference between nouns and verbs. Static is focus on "what is", while dynamic is focused on "what is happening".

    Rough examples:

    Fi: What is the emotional relationship?
    Fe: What is happening emotionally?

    Ti: What is the logical category?
    Te: What is happening, logically?

    Se: What is the physical nature of this?
    Si: What is happening physically?

    Ne: What is the abstract nature of this?
    Ni: What is happening in an abstract sense?
    I really like this actually
    Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx

  5. #85
    escaping anndelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp
    Posts
    6,359
    Mentioned
    215 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aiss View Post
    I like those better (from wikisocion):
    Static vs. dynamic

    Static information is discrete and about things that change abruptly:
    discrete temporal phases and sets of discrete alternatives
    discrete logical and structural dependencies between states of affairs.
    discrete spatial boundaries that delineate territory and control.
    discrete types of interpersonal relationships, such as "friend" or "enemy".

    Dynamic information is continuous and about things that are in constant fluctuation:
    one's continuous physical exchanges with one's environment.
    the continuous excitations in people's psychological states.
    the continuous evolution of things over time.
    the continuous incoming stream of objective facts about the world.
    Though I wouldn't use it for typing anyway, it's information aspects rather than elements.
    The problem with that wikisocion page is that the person who originally wrote the article either misunderstood, or misrepresented what "discrete" and "continuous" referred to.

    "discrete" actually refers to T&F (aka the judging elements)
    "continuous" actually refers to N&S (aka the perceiving elements)

    When we perceive something, little changes in what we are perceiving leads to little changes in our perception. These changes are lightening fast. The many little changes are difficult to communicate to others, and so is often viewed as 'irrational'.

    When we are judging something, comparing, etc, we are doing it one at a time, inch by inch, or one whole big thing instead of all its little parts. Small changes in our perceptions do not necessarily lead to small changes in our judgments. Judgments we hold can lead to ignoring small changes perceived. The discreteness is easier to communicate to others, and so is often viewed as 'rational'.

    For statics, Xe continuously change and are in flux, but the Xi are taken one at a time. Because the Xi are in discrete increments, it gives the sense of snap shots or structures being created...a more static sense.

    For dynamics, Xe are taken one at a time, but the Xi continuously change and are in flux. Because the Xi are in continuous change, it gives the sense of dynamicism.


    So in that wikisocion page, Ne, Se, Fe, and Te need to be reworded.
    For example, using that page's words....

    temporal phases and sets of alternatives (as something changes, so do the alternatives/phases available)
    spatial boundaries that delineate territory and control (as something changes, so do the boundaries/control)
    the excitations in people's psychological states (the states are discrete, however the changes that occur are due to Ni/Si which are in continuous motion)
    the objective facts about the world (the 'objective facts' are discrete, however their relevancy changes according to changes in Ni/Si, which are in continuous motion)


    For relevant links against that page, see my writing in the discussion portion of that page.
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp

  6. #86
    Darn Socks DirectorAbbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Southwest USA
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    7,123
    Mentioned
    383 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Krig the Viking View Post
    I think of it as being similar to the difference between nouns and verbs. Static is focus on "what is", while dynamic is focused on "what is happening".

    Rough examples:

    Fi: What is the emotional relationship?
    Fe: What is happening emotionally?

    Ti: What is the logical category?
    Te: What is happening, logically?

    Se: What is the physical nature of this?
    Si: What is happening physically?

    Ne: What is the abstract nature of this?
    Ni: What is happening in an abstract sense?


    Generally, statics think of things from lots of different angles and dynamics don't, but this is vague and unreliable.

    LSE
    1-6-2 so/sx
    Johari Nohari

    Quote Originally Posted by Ritella View Post
    Over here, we'll put up with (almost) all of your crap. You just have to use the secret phrase: "I don't value it. It's related to <insert random element here>, which is not in my quadra."
    Quote Originally Posted by Aquagraph View Post
    Abbie is so boring and rigid it's awesome instead of boring and rigid. She seems so practical and down-to-the-ground.

  7. #87
    Contrarian Traditionalist Krig the Viking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Canada's Prairie Farmland
    TIM
    C-LII
    Posts
    2,608
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Anndelise, you're getting into an interesting area which I have done a lot of thinking about lately; here's my thoughts...

    I think I understand the underlying idea that you're getting at, but I also think that the "Static=discrete/Dynamic=continuous" paradigm can explain it just as well as your "Judging=discrete/Perceiving=continuous" paradigm. The way the Static/Dynamic dichotomy is described by many socionists does have much in common with the discrete/continuous dichotomy, so if the differences between Rational and Irrational can be explained without having to assign discrete/continuous to a different dichotomy, it seems to me that it's more likely to be true. Occam's Razor, and all that.

    My explanation:
    Rational elements are dynamics of objects and statics of fields. Therefore, to be Rational is to see things out in the world as changeable and being in constant flux, and to see the way things relate to one another as basically staying the same most of the time. When we make a judgement, we are either trying to determine how things do relate to one another, or how things ought to relate to one another. In both cases, we are dealing in statics of fields. Such judgements are made based on data from the ever-changing world. This data is perceived continuously, and the judgements which spring from the data are made discretely.

    Irrational elements are statics of objects and dynamics of fields. Therefore, to be Irrational is to see things out in the world as basically staying the same most of the time, and seeing the way things in the world relate to one another as changeable, being in constant flux. When we perceive the world, we are examining "the way the world really is right now"; we're watching how things shift and change in relation to one another, i.e., the dynamics of fields. How things relate to one another is seen to be influenced by the essential nature of the things involved. The nature of things is perceived discretely because it's not thought to change much, while they way things relate to one another is perceived continuously, because it's thought to be constantly changing.

    In other words, anndelise, you say that because Static Xi is discrete, it gives Static types "a more static sense", and because Dynamic Xi is continuous, it gives Dynamic types "the sense of dynamicism". I contend the reverse; that because Ji is Static and discrete, it gives Judging types the illusion of being more discrete than Perceiving types, and because Pi is Dynamic and continuous, it gives Dynamic types the illusion of being more continuous than Judging types. Interestingly, in both cases, it's the Xi that in some way determines the Xi-Xe pair's overall "feeling".
    Quaero Veritas.

  8. #88
    ._. Aiss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    TIM
    IEI
    Posts
    2,009
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anndelise View Post
    The problem with that wikisocion page is that the person who originally wrote the article either misunderstood, or misrepresented what "discrete" and "continuous" referred to.
    You've recently written a post about how objective and subjective are bad terms, because they might be interpreted differently and be applied to many dichotomies. I agree with that, though in any specific understanding, it's still closer to some dichotomy than others. In fact, I stopped using discrete/continuous (or holistic/modular) a while ago exactly because of the same reason - it can be applied to many dichotomies. You make a good case for rational/irrational here. But apart from typical static/dynamic argument, one could also say that internal elements are more holistic than external, which is a case I once made; or even that extroverted elements are more modular, dealing with one thing at a time, while introverted are not, though this one is obviously flawed in disregarding both rationality and internality. My point is, it's not as simple. So in a way I agree with Krig that it's unnecessary.

    Digital/analog comparison kind of binds in with Krig's concept of "is" and "ought to be", as well as with Jung's original use of the words "perception" and "judgment". I think the latter is seriously underestimated because of p/j misuse in MBTI. Rational - judging - functions are originally described as more conclusive. I'd say that where irrational functions perceive and expand their view, rational functions attempt to unify perspectives. The former are divergent where the latter are more convergent, creating an illusion of continuous/discrete difference - whereas in fact it is their effects that differ. What I mean is, rational functions process continuous information just as irrational do, but they're conclusive about it, create clearer, discrete-like results - decisions. In other words - Px elements expand on perspectives, Jx elements reduce them to the core.

    Ji functions attempt to unify perspectives to create a consistent model. This unification makes it static; not because it's permanent, but because it's clear - decision-based - framework. Ji model is one of unified perspectives, not merely choosing a single one.
    Pi functions expand on perspectives, never settling on one. Whether they change their minds more often or not is secondary; the point is, they never lock in any single model, even if it unified what may be unified - because they aren't always possible to be explicitly integrated. They're dynamic because of it, switching and recombining perspectives rather than ever deciding on them.

    Je functions attempt to unify perspectives of a fragment they perceive. This can be holistic or modular, but its results are not. They combine them resulting in focus on change.
    Pe functions expand on perspectives when viewing a fragment of the world. This means each one is unique, and as they're left uncombined, they remain static. It's entirely point-in-time dependent - not really clearly separate snapshots, but additive rather than synthetic.

    This also makes sense in context of +/- and aristocratic/democratic dichotomy. Where perception and judgment are of the same internality/externality, the unification is easier and more natural, resulting in expanded judgment, that is, -Px/+Jx elements. In democratic quadras, these are of opposing internality/externality, making unification less possible, resulting in expanded perspective over judgment - +Px/-Jx. While this adds a flavour, it's still less pronounced distinction than by leading element, which determines type's rationality.

  9. #89
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,937
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Is it even possible to perform computations on continuity? The question, in my opinion, is not whether continuity or discreteness is examined, but at what point and how an intractable continuous problem is turned into a discrete one that can actually be articulated and solved.

  10. #90
    Contrarian Traditionalist Krig the Viking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Canada's Prairie Farmland
    TIM
    C-LII
    Posts
    2,608
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Another relevant way of looking at this: if you read the Temperament descriptions, you find that EP is bothered by his perception of a lack of change in reality, IP is soothed by his perception of continual change in reality, EJ is bothered by his perception of continual change in reality, and IJ is soothed by the lack of change in reality. Putting them together, we see that the Perceiving types seem to "prefer" change, and the Judging types seem to "prefer" stability.

    To me, this indicates that in some sense, for both Rationality and Irrationality, the Introverted functions are the goal, and the Extraverted functions are the means to get there.

    Interestingly, this ties in well with 1981slater's and my ideas on Gulenko's Romantic Styles -- specifically that all Introverted Ego functions are in some sense "Caregiving"; they take care of providing what the "Infantiles" (those of the opposite temperament, with that Introverted element in their Super-Id instead of the Ego) feel is lacking in the world.
    Quaero Veritas.

  11. #91
    24601 ClownsandEntropy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    TIM
    LII, 5w6
    Posts
    670
    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Differing between Static and Dynamic

    Can anyone think of a question (or questions) that will differ between Statics and Dynamics? This is mainly intended to assist the Brilliand's test (available here) which is, to date, pretty precise, but gives two results as it does not differ between Statics and Dynamics. Alternatively, this can be a thread for people to post about the difference between the two dichotomies, in terms of their traits, and then questions can be developed from that.

    (Original thread visible here)
    Warm Regards,



    Clowns & Entropy

  12. #92

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    TIM
    INFj sub (Fi+Ne)/2
    Posts
    449
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    You should perhaps simply get help from the dichotomie description ?

    Static types

    1. Perceive events in an episodic manner – discrete states rather than continuous changes.
    2. More inclined to say how stages A, B and C are.
    3. Describe events in a general manner and by comparing them to other similar events.
    4. More inclined to talk of properties and structures of reality.
    5. The stories of statics usually involve one constant main character.

    Dynamic types

    1. Perceive events in a continuous sequence – continuous changes rather than discrete states.
    2. More inclined to say how stage A leads to stage B, and how stage B leads to stage C.
    3. Describe events in a specific and concrete manner.
    4. More inclined to talk of movements and interactions of reality.
    5. The stories of dynamics usually involve multiple main characters.
    For static, questionning about point 2, 3 seem accurate. For me its the two I can clearly relate, wich dont appear dull and mindfucking.
    For dynamic, 2, 3 probably too.
    "The final delusion is the belief that one has lost all delusion."

    -- Maurice Chapelain

  13. #93
    24601 ClownsandEntropy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    TIM
    LII, 5w6
    Posts
    670
    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noid View Post
    You should perhaps simply get help from the dichotomie description ?

    Static types

    1. Perceive events in an episodic manner – discrete states rather than continuous changes.
    2. More inclined to say how stages A, B and C are.
    3. Describe events in a general manner and by comparing them to other similar events.
    4. More inclined to talk of properties and structures of reality.
    5. The stories of statics usually involve one constant main character.

    Dynamic types

    1. Perceive events in a continuous sequence – continuous changes rather than discrete states.
    2. More inclined to say how stage A leads to stage B, and how stage B leads to stage C.
    3. Describe events in a specific and concrete manner.
    4. More inclined to talk of movements and interactions of reality.
    5. The stories of dynamics usually involve multiple main characters.
    For static, questionning about point 2, 3 seem accurate. For me its the two I can clearly relate, wich dont appear dull and mindfucking.
    For dynamic, 2, 3 probably too.
    Yeah, those two seem the easiest to think about (I'm not sure how often I talk about the properties and structure of reality! ) It seems to work for me as well: that I usually recall stories as one event being followed by another, not on leading to the next. Not sure whether I describe events in a more specific (dynamic) or general (static) manner, though, although I do tend to forget the specifics of most things, so chances are it would be general. That, however, is probably not type related
    Warm Regards,



    Clowns & Entropy

  14. #94
    Crispy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,034
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Iz ur life a tv show or movie? Static vs. Dynamic gogogog ogogovbo
    ILI (FINAL ANSWER)

  15. #95

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    TIM
    INFj sub (Fi+Ne)/2
    Posts
    449
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Yeah, those two seem the easiest to think about (I'm not sure how often I talk about the properties and structure of reality! ) It seems to work for me as well: that I usually recall stories as one event being followed by another, not on leading to the next. Not sure whether I describe events in a more specific (dynamic) or general (static) manner, though, although I do tend to forget the specifics of most things, so chances are it would be general. That, however, is probably not type related
    There is a possibility that when one guy will rely extensively on his static dominant in order to describe an event, he probably will use demonstrative too wo is dynamic, wich can cause unwanted typing effect. Yes, yes. Im interested to see if this possibility is verified. Seriously speaking, for once.

    gogogog ogogovbo
    admitting this too, this lead me thinking static is the same than dynamic, but dynamic type is born a static way wich dont go well with the dynamic parenting they get, leading obviously to unexpected side effect on many dichotomie.
    "The final delusion is the belief that one has lost all delusion."

    -- Maurice Chapelain

  16. #96
    24601 ClownsandEntropy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    TIM
    LII, 5w6
    Posts
    670
    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Crispy View Post
    Iz ur life a tv show or movie? Static vs. Dynamic gogogog ogogovbo
    Is this a serious suggestion, an attempt to be funny, an attempt to show that such a question can't be created, an attempt to show that the question we are considering are too simple, or an attempt to stimulate conversation.

    Sorry, I genuinely don't know, just trying to see where we're at.
    Warm Regards,



    Clowns & Entropy

  17. #97
    Crispy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,034
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    No idea; had just eaten edibles at the time. Here's relevant information:
    http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p...yles%28wiki%29

    Static–Dynamic Dichotomy

    In general terms, this dichotomy refers to orientation towards either space (Static) or time (Dynamic). The categories of space and time are vital a priori concepts studied in detail by Immanuel Kant in "Critique of Pure Reason", contrasting them as extent and duration.

    Statics depend more on space, Dynamics more on time. Filling space with objects characterizes Static behavior, whereas Dynamics saturate time with events. Statics cannot stand empty space—they immediately fill it with available items on hand. Dynamics cannot stand empty time—boredom, stagnation, prolonged states of the same condition. In a certain sense, Statics can be called people of place, Dynamics people of time.

    Now consider this dichotomy on the individual levels of communication.


    Intellectual Level

    Statics tend towards fragmentary-analytic thinking; Dynamics tend towards associative-synthetic thinking.

    Analysis, as defined by most sources, is the division of a whole into clearly delimited parts. Analytical work is meant to delineate boundaries. Whereas synthesis is akin to associativity, i.e. the association of two or more concepts by fuzzy, rapid connections whereby one occurrence immediately evokes others to mind. Resulting in a coherent synthetic image with blurred internal boundaries.

    The epitomization of Dynamic cognition formed the explanatory basis for the nature of mental processes in the theory of associationism. Aristotle first advanced the idea that spontaneous mental images can converge so closely together that the similarity or contrast of multiple associations emerges on the basis of contiguity. Later John Locke argued that ideas of any degree of complexity emerge from the process of associating simple sensations. In this case he contrasted the association of ideas against purely semantic connections, which in his opinion were secondary.

    Indeed, eidetic mnemonic techniques showed that with aid of visual association, it is possible to connect anything in the mind. Here are some of the eidetic memory techniques originating in antiquity.

    Roman orator Cicero used the 'method of loci' to memorize his speeches by heart. He mentally laid out information in the corners of a room, mentally returning to one corner or another to extract as required. Medieval Dominican monks studying rhetoric used the same method. They took a road familiar to them to the last detail and mentally walked down it, successively laying out along the road statements which would be presented before the audience. While speaking, they would mentally walk the route, 'raising' key concepts they had previously laid there.

    Contemporary advertising cleverly exploits the Dynamic side of human cognition. It is mainly based on the mechanism of association by context (manly cowboy next to a pack of cigarettes) or contrast (ordinary laundry detergent vs. advertised laundry detergent). Judging by this means of consumer inducement, advertising presumably influences Statics much less than Dynamics. Statics memorize more effectively when material is structured in rigid semantic relationships, where each concept is fixed in memory cells like a computer.

    Thus, Dynamics are stronger in synthesis operations (not mere simple connections, but confluence of associations), while Statics are stronger in analysis (not just any separation, but clear and precise delineations). Thus, the discrete/continuous pairing has more to do with the Static–Dynamic dichotomy, than with otherwise customary Rationality/Irrationality. But then, what exactly is the latter? Irrationality indicates situationality (predominance of context over aim), while Rationality indicates regularity (predominance of aim over context).


    Social Level

    Differences between Dynamic and Static types at this level corresponds to the contrast between initiators and finalizers.

    Dynamics are stronger at the beginning of any activity: they easily move and quickly enter the realm of nominal activity. Rapid transitions from a previous state into a new process of change itself—this is their customary life. Statics better sustain and continue what has already begun—that which is already in motion. They must be preliminarily excited.

    However, in the Dynamic is a process of continuous readjustment of focus and 'drift' of purposes. Because of this, the priorities of Dynamics are volatile and poor in hierarchical coordination. One wish may be quickly replaced by another and it is difficult for them to concentrate on any one specific long-term goal without external support. The strength of Dynamics is not in retaining goals, but in achieving them; they are better tacticians than strategists.

    The objectives of Statics are more stable and reliable. They know what they want and are able to maintain long-term focus upon it. They arrange priorities in their life and work, with well-differentiated primary and secondary objectives that are rarely reversed. Statics are more successful strategists than tacticians; they know what to do much better than how to do it.

    A predominance of Dynamics in any social group renders it unstable, prone to endless change, and sensitive to external interference. Conversely, if predominated by Statics, then rapid transformations prove to be impossible due to excess psychological inertia, rendering the group stabler but more conservative.


    Psychological Level

    The Static–Dynamic dichotomy controls the degree of equilibrium in the nervous system. Generally, the nervous system of Statics can be regarded as balanced and Dynamics as unbalanced.

    This is tied to variability in the internal state commonly referred to as 'mood'. The mood of Dynamics, even if Rational, can substantially change or fluctuate for seemingly insignificant reasons (from an outside observer POV). The Dynamic wants total freedom but is more dependent on ambient environmental conditions and needs a solid foundation.

    Statics possess a relatively autonomous psycho-emotional state; their mood is difficult to spoil, and equally difficult to raise. For Statics, providing reliable support to those psychologically depending on them is a routine situation.

    Dynamics often develop a psycho-physiological phenomenon known as 'synaesthesia'—a complex relationship between the sensory modalities that results in confluence between them. Synchronized perception of color, sound, smell, and taste as a single complex gives Dynamics a special vividness in their perception of reality. Sometimes fusion of sensation is developed to such an extent that internal images appear indistinguishable from reality. For Statics, given the discreteness of their mental apparatus, regular synesthesia is usually a rare exception or the result of special training.


    Physical Level

    At this level, Static–Dynamic manifests as contrasting impulses to biological homeostasis/heterostasis. Homeostasis I understand as constancy and heterostasis as variability of the organism and its surrounding environment.

    Dynamics are heterostatically inclined to change their material conditions of life such as wardrobe, home interior, or furniture arrangement, for sake of variety or out of boredom. For Statics this tendency is uncharacteristic. Only with difficulty do they proceed with changes to their home environment to which they have become accustomed. They will do so only when it's easier to yield to circumstantial pressures, than to resist.

    As types with variable metabolism, Dynamics can rapidly grow stout, though just as quickly lose weight if they fall into a state of emotional distress. Statics have the opposite problem, of a stabler weight and build: if already seriously fat (or thin), they remain so for longer times. Their bodily metabolism is more invariant.

    The same laws apply in relation to other physiological parameters such as temperature, blood pressure, perspiration, etc. For example, the body temperature of Dynamics may fluctuate during the day even with no overt symptoms of illness. With sufficient training, Dynamic types can consciously change these parameters in the desired direction.
    ILI (FINAL ANSWER)

  18. #98
    Angel of Lightning Brilliand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Utah
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    4,235
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I don't want to take credit for that test in its current form. It was originally created by Hugo; all I did was rip it from Wayback, and change it to use the16types' element pictures instead of the ones it originally used (which I wasn't able to find).

    The information that Crispy posted will take quite a bit of distillation, and I think there's some Alpha bias, but I think it's the right starting point. Here's a start:

    Static

    I easily keep different concepts separate from each other. When faced with a new situation, I keep in mind what I already know.

    Dynamic

    My thoughts flow seamlessly together. I easily notice patterns in my thoughts or experiences, and I easily adapt to new situations.



    LII-Ne

    "Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
    - Blair Houghton

    Johari

  19. #99
    ._. Aiss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    TIM
    IEI
    Posts
    2,009
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    stable vs volatile.

    is.

    at least partly related.

  20. #100
    EffyCold The Ineffable's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Wallachia
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    2,191
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Based on my understanding:
    - Dynamic verbs, something about the subject, something that is going on or may occur: does, goes, has (1);
    - Static verbs, something inherent in the subject, inherent, its nature: is, consists of, belongs to.
    ---

    (1) - not the meaning of consisting of, properties.
    Shock intuition, diamond logic.
     

    The16types.info Scientific Model

  21. #101
    if it isn't Mr. Nice Guy Ave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    6,147
    Mentioned
    246 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Statics are active, dynamics are reactive. That means statics tend to act but internally respond less, dynamics the other way around. I think thats the best definition given thus far, though I have to give the credit to smilingeyes.
    Join my Enneagram Discord: https://discord.gg/ND4jCAcs

  22. #102
    Punk
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    TIM
    ESE
    Posts
    1,645
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default dynamic - static

    i noticed that a person's conscious orientation revolves around being either static or dynamic in model A - there is no in-between (ego and superego are conscious and both either dynamic or static). and so your superid is an area of neurosis, something that contends with your ego and represents the opposite of your ego's dynamic or static focus, according to Jung.

    i thought this was interesting because i have noticed that some people hold the idea that because the superid is considered valued that that means a person develops and can have conscious control over it to an extent. this can equate to seeing a functionally dynamic presentation and typing the ego as a static type. im assuming the discrepancy lies in viewing the superid as seemingly unfocused, leading to the conclusion that it must be the superid in contention with the ego.

    i would like to hear what you all think about this because i thought the way Jung structured this contention was that we generally ignore or repress it, for better or worse, and that its presentation has to be spontaneous and not given too much free reign or else the spontaneity can do us harm, even death in some cases (but we also need to give it some reign or that can be bad to, hah).

    that said, do you think it makes sense to type a function, such as Fe, as in a person's superid and not the ego, even though their Fe presentation might be really elaborate, despite perhaps still seemingly being spontaneous? i guess in other words, where do we draw the line on what we deem unconscious and conscious? because this seems to be something people dont agree on, but haven't really talked about it as far as i know.

    edit: perhaps people could even provide (video) examples to help people understand their point.

  23. #103
    ClaudiaM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    TIM
    EIE (-Ni?)
    Posts
    73
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Slacker View Post
    The best example of this IMO was given by Rocky. And it was this: If you give a certain amount of money to charity every year, and then one year your financial circumstances change and money is tighter, do you at least try to give the same amount of money because the charity's needs are the same (static), or do you give less because your circumstances have changed and you wouldn't expect you'd give the same amount if you don't have as much available (dynamic).

    I really thought EVERYONE would try to give the same amount, but my husband (who id dynamic) thought I was crazy to think that way and said if we ever have financial problems not to expect that to happen. So far, it's the best example I've seen.
    Bumping for a great example

  24. #104
    squark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,814
    Mentioned
    287 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ClaudiaM View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Slacker View Post
    The best example of this IMO was given by Rocky. And it was this: If you give a certain amount of money to charity every year, and then one year your financial circumstances change and money is tighter, do you at least try to give the same amount of money because the charity's needs are the same (static), or do you give less because your circumstances have changed and you wouldn't expect you'd give the same amount if you don't have as much available (dynamic).

    I really thought EVERYONE would try to give the same amount, but my husband (who id dynamic) thought I was crazy to think that way and said if we ever have financial problems not to expect that to happen. So far, it's the best example I've seen.
    Bumping for a great example
    No. Not a good example. A static type can look at their current budget as is and determine what's reasonable to give and what's not as easily as a dynamic can.

    IMO: A better way to look at it might be that statics don't expect things to change on their own (even when knowing that of course things change.) When things do change, they're temporarily jarred, but adjust to the new circumstances. Dynamics are less likely to put stock in things staying the same, expecting that it will change.

    A fairly good old thread you might like:
    http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ead.php?t=7348

    And also, a Se-sub LSI will be more EP-like than typical, and a Ti-sub more IJ-like. A Ni-sub EIE will be more IP-like than typical, and a Fe-sub more EJ-like.

    Additionally, I think positivism/negativism will have some impact, rather than just rationality/irrationality as was brought up in that thread. For instance, a positivist EJ may want to build on changes they see happening instead of stopping them, and a positivist IJ more welcoming of change, while a negativist IP may not be.

    An INFp vs ISFp for example: The INFp is a positivist, dynamic, introvert, while the ISFp is a negativist. So, an IEI might take the viewpoint, "Oh good, things are changing and moving along, I don't have to do anything," while the ISFp might think, "I hope things don't change too quickly/much, or I might have to do something." (Negs want to minimize the bad, and pos want to maximize the good)

  25. #105
    Exodus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    8,446
    Mentioned
    335 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by squark View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ClaudiaM View Post

    Bumping for a great example
    No. Not a good example. A static type can look at their current budget as is and determine what's reasonable to give and what's not as easily as a dynamic can.

    IMO: A better way to look at it might be that statics don't expect things to change on their own (even when knowing that of course things change.) When things do change, they're temporarily jarred, but adjust to the new circumstances. Dynamics are less likely to put stock in things staying the same, expecting that it will change.
    That's a good way of saying it, and it comes out in the original example. I like (and think about life in terms of) things that have a clear sense of being "done" or "not done", rather than things that require continuous attention and adjustment.

  26. #106
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,858
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Increasingly I'm beginning to question the validity of the IM component model. And the more attention I'm paying to it, the more I see it wasn't Augusta who conceived of the "internal/external" and "dynamic/static" components. To her, the IM aspects (did she even call them "aspects"?) were known by sensation.

    Rick just came along and said "this is how the socionists see it"... but he may have put his faith in the wrong people.

  27. #107
    ClaudiaM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    TIM
    EIE (-Ni?)
    Posts
    73
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by squark View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ClaudiaM View Post

    Bumping for a great example
    No. Not a good example. A static type can look at their current budget as is and determine what's reasonable to give and what's not as easily as a dynamic can.

    IMO: A better way to look at it might be that statics don't expect things to change on their own (even when knowing that of course things change.) When things do change, they're temporarily jarred, but adjust to the new circumstances. Dynamics are less likely to put stock in things staying the same, expecting that it will change.

    A fairly good old thread you might like:
    http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ead.php?t=7348

    And also, a Se-sub LSI will be more EP-like than typical, and a Ti-sub more IJ-like. A Ni-sub EIE will be more IP-like than typical, and a Fe-sub more EJ-like.

    Additionally, I think positivism/negativism will have some impact, rather than just rationality/irrationality as was brought up in that thread. For instance, a positivist EJ may want to build on changes they see happening instead of stopping them, and a positivist IJ more welcoming of change, while a negativist IP may not be.

    An INFp vs ISFp for example: The INFp is a positivist, dynamic, introvert, while the ISFp is a negativist. So, an IEI might take the viewpoint, "Oh good, things are changing and moving along, I don't have to do anything," while the ISFp might think, "I hope things don't change too quickly/much, or I might have to do something." (Negs want to minimize the bad, and pos want to maximize the good)
    Since we are using the internet and you cannot see me as I read and react to your post, I will attempt to use emoticons to demonstrate. It went like this:
    / --> --> --> /

    So, thank you

    (Ps. I realize the above is somewhat lame. However, I have had quite a bit of wine this evening. Whatever I will probably reply later, when I am sober and non-giggly)
    Last edited by ClaudiaM; 09-02-2011 at 02:07 AM.

  28. #108
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,937
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    the OP pretty much gets it completely wrong. it's the other way around.

  29. #109
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,858
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    My gripe with static/dynamic is that it seems to conflict with Mitchell's pol types.

    The truth tables just don't seem compatible between the two systems. We know that individualists and communitarians are all "REFORM THE UNIVERSE!" and "CHANGE IS GOOD... EVEN IF IT'S BAD!" (in extreme cases anyway)... so it seems they get the title of "dynamist" and the use of any of the IM functions on behalf of change is dynamism no matter the element. On the other hand there are plenty of Ni types who support the status quo.

    Giving up either system is unthinkable -- too much overt evidence for both -- so the question is how to define the functions respective to either without having overlap.

  30. #110
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    8,313
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    According to this I am stynatic.

  31. #111
    Trevor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,840
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post
    the OP pretty much gets it completely wrong. it's the other way around.

  32. #112
    Exodus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    8,446
    Mentioned
    335 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post
    the OP pretty much gets it completely wrong. it's the other way around.
    yeah, basically.

  33. #113
    Cat King Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    TIM
    IIEE so/sp 4w5
    Posts
    735
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    This is the case from personal experience as well. I know I tend to have very rambly conversations with an SEI friend of mine because we have to start "at the beginning" and work our way through all the details to whatever point we're trying to get at. If a story isn't communicated point-to-point, we just draw mental blanks and can't really relate any of the information.

    Nico1e on these very forums is a really interesting example of this, because she manifests the tendency in such a raw way--even to the extent of backing up to tell the story of what led up to writing the thread. It's worth noting that in a lot of formal contexts, like essay-writing, too many or too few details can be an impediment, or is frowned upon; so types can somewhat change their writing style. Speaking style will remain unaffected, since the cognitive load would be far too high to isolate key points during speech (or I suppose dwell on cause and effect and point-to-point details, for Static types).
    Know I'm mistyped?


    Why I am now.
    Why I was , once.

    DISCLAIMER
    The statements expressed in this signature may not necessarily reflect reality.

  34. #114
    squark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,814
    Mentioned
    287 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ClaudiaM View Post

    Since we are using the internet and you cannot see me as I read and react to your post, I will attempt to use emoticons to demonstrate. It went like this:
    / --> --> --> /

    So, thank you
    You're welcome!

  35. #115
    Serious Left-Static Negativist Eliza Thomason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    eastern U.S.
    TIM
    ENFp, IEE
    Posts
    3,671
    Mentioned
    378 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Static/Dynamic

    Does anyone have any thoughts on their type of this?

    Here is what Static and Dynamic are:
    Static types
    1. Perceive events in an episodic manner – discrete states rather than continuous changes.
    2. More inclined to say how stages A, B and C are.
    3. Describe events in a general manner and by comparing them to other similar events.
    4. More inclined to talk of properties and structures of reality.
    5. The stories of statics usually involve one constant main character.

    Dynamic types
    1. Perceive events in a continuous sequence – continuous changes rather than discrete states.
    2. More inclined to say how stage A leads to stage B, and how stage B leads to stage C.
    3. Describe events in a specific and concrete manner.
    4. More inclined to talk of movements and interactions of reality.
    5. The stories of dynamics usually involve multiple main characters.


    Here is who is what:
    - Static types are : ILE, LII, LSI, SLE, SEE, ESI, EII, IEE.
    - Dynamic types are : SEI, ESE, EIE, IEI, ILI, LIE, LSE, SLI.
    - Using the four-letter code: statics are EP or IJ, and dynamics are EJ or IP.

    Intertype relations
    static/dynamic in common: identity · mirror · business · kindred
    super-ego · conflict · supervision ·

    static/dynamic not in common:
    duality · activation · illusionary · semi-duality
    quasi-identity · extinguishment · benefit ·



    My "monologue" for all you Declarers that read them :
    This is interesting how SLI and I differ (He - Dynamic, me - Static) I particularly notice the difference in how we describe events, as in 3. - he is specific and concrete. And as to 1., that is so true, and you can see it in our journals, what journaling i have done is along the lines of Static 1., the state of my mind or the meaning of events, while SLI kept journals faithfully for years, like a Dynamic 1, definitely a continuous sequence. Finally, if I ever wrote a story, it would, like a static, have one main character throughout. One of my favorite writers, Mark Twain, an IEE, does that, with his better known Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn, and most wonderfully with his favorite work and mine, Joan of Arc. But my SLI has written two books, not published, and they are FULL of multiple characters. I found it kind of mind-boggling to read, so much to keep track of; I had to make charts as I read. But he did it, that is how his mind works, so different from mine in that way.

  36. #116
    mikesilb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    198
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    It is funny because I would have thought that a Dynamic would be writing stories that have a single character but go through this fantastic story arc in which the main character becomes visibly transformed by all the events that have taken place throughout the course of the story. I almost view it as if the main character is traveling down a vortex (or kinda like a waterslide tube) and is moving this way and that way, and throughout the time duration becomes transformed by the twists and turns that take place throughout the trajectory of his/her life.

    Contrastingly, I could view a Static at a point where time is completely frozen and he/she has a choice to interact with one particular character out of a million possibilities. So the book would discuss all the possible people who could be spoken to at a given time. The possibilities are endless; yet, the reality is that he/she can only interact with one person at any given time. However, a Static might assess all those possibilities that could take place at any given second and elaborate on each one....and then the next one...and on and on.

    Thus, in a nutshell, I could easily see the Dynamic story containing one main character (that changes over time), while I could see the Static story consisting of multiple main characters interplaying at any single point in time.

    Does that kinda make sense based on the definition of Static/Dynamic? Curious as to your thoughts about this!
    Mike
    Enneagram: 6w7 so/sx (Tritype: 6w7/9w1/2w3 or 6w7/9w1/3w2)

  37. #117
    Local Hero Saberstorm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Isle of Man
    TIM
    Robespierre
    Posts
    2,125
    Mentioned
    68 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mikesilb View Post
    Contrastingly, I could view a Static at a point where time is completely frozen and he/she has a choice to interact with one particular character out of a million possibilities. So the book would discuss all the possible people who could be spoken to at a given time. The possibilities are endless; yet, the reality is that he/she can only interact with one person at any given time. However, a Static might assess all those possibilities that could take place at any given second and elaborate on each one....and then the next one...and on and on.

    Curious as to your thoughts about this!
    A good example of a static book is "My NAME IS RED." It is the story of a ghost, told through the ghost's point of view. It is EXACTLY Mike's discription of the static. The ghost's thoughts are static as well. It was a very good book, and was a new york times best seller. Check it out!

    Hardback Edition: http://www.amazon.com/Name-Red-Every...words=I+am+red

    Kindle Edition: http://www.amazon.com/My-Name-Is-Red...words=I+am+red
     
    God is most glorified when we are most satisfied in Him.
    - John Piper


    Socionics -
    the16types.info

  38. #118
    Humanist Beautiful sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    EII land
    TIM
    EII INFj
    Posts
    26,955
    Mentioned
    701 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    see the constructivist/emotivist thread about what my dual cousin said and see how that relates to the dynamics
    -
    Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
    Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?


    I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE

    Best description of functions:
    http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html

  39. #119
    mikesilb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    198
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Saberstorm View Post
    A good example of a static book is "My NAME IS RED." It is the story of a ghost, told through the ghost's point of view. It is EXACTLY Mike's discription of the static. The ghost's thoughts are static as well. It was a very good book, and was a new york times best seller. Check it out!

    Hardback Edition: http://www.amazon.com/Name-Red-Every...words=I+am+red

    Kindle Edition: http://www.amazon.com/My-Name-Is-Red...words=I+am+red
    Thanks for the book recommendation! I checked it out (using a Kindle sample download) and it looks like it does have a very static-y feel. I like the fact that each chapter name has the format of "I am X" (where X keeps meaning a new thing). So that certainly feels static-y. It also seems (from the tiny, tiny sample that I read) that each part focuses on a single moment in time and describes various aspects of that single moment in time...Again, an obvious static component.

    Very cool indeed that the book kinda goes in this direction. If I was a betting man, I would say that more books have a dynamic flavor (since time/history is so obviously important when describing the evolution of a person, place, thing, or event). As a likely dynamic type (although I cannot swear to this just yet), I deeply value that element of change between one event and another. On the flip side, it is often really cool to see those static descriptions where time just stops but yet, so many other things/events can just as easily happen in a split second. It is kinda mind-boggling actually!

    Thanks again for bringing this book up (as an example of what we have been talking about in this thread)!
    Mike
    Enneagram: 6w7 so/sx (Tritype: 6w7/9w1/2w3 or 6w7/9w1/3w2)

  40. #120
    EffyCold The Ineffable's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Wallachia
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    2,191
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eliza Thomason View Post
    Here is what Static and Dynamic are:
    Static types
    1. Perceive events in an episodic manner – discrete states rather than continuous changes.
    2. More inclined to say how stages A, B and C are.
    3. Describe events in a general manner and by comparing them to other similar events.
    4. More inclined to talk of properties and structures of reality.
    5. The stories of statics usually involve one constant main character.

    Dynamic types
    1. Perceive events in a continuous sequence – continuous changes rather than discrete states.
    2. More inclined to say how stage A leads to stage B, and how stage B leads to stage C.
    3. Describe events in a specific and concrete manner.
    4. More inclined to talk of movements and interactions of reality.
    5. The stories of dynamics usually involve multiple main characters.]
    Bold = definitely. Normal = could say that.

    And for the record, states and stages pertain to Dynamic conscious cognition.
     
    I'm saying "conscious" - being a little bit detailed - because it would be improper to suggest pure Dynamic or Static cognition. Normally one should not care about it when talking about one of the two.
    Shock intuition, diamond logic.
     

    The16types.info Scientific Model

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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