Thinking styles and patterns of self-typing

[Aiss]

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...g-gulenko.html

[Brilliand]

Here's what I'm thinking at present (after reading Krig's post)...

Process: Consider many types simultaneously
Result: Consider one type at a time
Positivist: Comes to a final answer
Negativist: Constantly reconsidering

Static/Dynamic just seems like the Reininization of those dichotomies at this point. Dynamic is when the initial spread matches the final spread (many-many or one-one), whereas Static is where it doesn't (holographic - considering one type at a time to arrive at a set of probabilities, cause-effect - considering many types at once to come to one conclusion).

(The effect of Krig's post here was the process/result distinction)

EDIT: The Positivist/Negativist distinction here is uncomfortably similar to the "I know I don't really understand the theory"/"I understand the theory well" distinction.

[krieger]

I think the impact of thinking style should not be overstated. It is a relatively difficult to quantify phenomenon compared to several other things in socionics. I would expect temperament and club to have a far greater impact on the way a person reaches their self-typing than thinking style.