1. ## Statics and Dynamics in Quadras

Now with the new Bombs(exploding everywhere!) that are dropping all over the place I thought it might be good to bring this into awareness, as elementary and obvious as it is.

Each quadra contains 2 statics, and two dynamic types. In each pair one is extraverted, one is introverted.

Static types share the same functions with one another, Dynamics also share the same functions with one another.

So the Dynamic ring for a Static type is their unconscious, the Static ring for an Dynamic type is unconscious.

So perhaps a good way to further look into this sort of dichotomy is to think of the fact that these types share the same information in their consciousness.

The Statics all have conscious
The dynamics all have conscious

Each quadra assembles these patterns in a harmonious(symmetrical) way.

There are mirror diads: Ij-Ep and Ej-Ip

Static+Static(one I and one E) and Dynamic+Dynamic (one I and one E)

The mirrors have a strong ability accept the productions of one another since they are essentially made out of the same information, but from opposite sides.

There are Dual diads: Ep-Ip and Ij-Ej

Static+Dynamic (one I and one E)

The duals mutually compensate for the weaknesses of one another's accepting and creating functions through a strong unconscious corrective charge(just because it isn't located in the corrective block I don't think that it means it isn't correction).

There are Activity diads: Ep-Ej and Ip-Ij

Static+Dynamic (one I and one E)

Activation partners appear have a strong ability to accept the weak unconscious output of one another while simultaneously correcting and influencing the immaturity and naivette of one another, resulting in activity with little intellectual advance.

In these diads each person shares the same conscious ring

Direct- Identical, Lookalike, Super-Ego, Comparative
Reversed- Mirror, Supervisee, Conflicting, Supervisor

Static+Dynamic

In these diads each person exists in one another's unconscious ring

Direct: Duality, Illusionary, Contrary, Semi-duality
Reversed: Activity, Benefactee, Quasi Identical, Benefactor

So looking at it this way it lets us see the "BIG PICTURE" of the quadra structure and how it operates.

I am pretty certain as to my correctness of the use of the terms "direct" and "reversed". If i am incorrect I apologize. I mean it in the sense that direct= PP or JJ and reversed= PJ, J>P or P>J

and PTL, I haven't forgotten about that other thread, still in the works :wink:

2. Okay, very good, but why is IJ/EP called static and IP/EJ called dynamic? What is it about these types that allow us to describe them with these terms?

3. The descriptions are here:

http://www.the16types.info/groups.php?groupsid=3

Of course, I am not certain as to the validity of the descriptions in the Reinin dichotomies, but this doesn't change anything relating to the functional aspect.

But again, the conscious functions of a static are the unconscious functions of a dynamic, and vice versa.

4. It is sorry for me to say, but the criterion Static-Dynamic, as well as other so-called Reinin's criteria, is just one of myths of the early socionics.
At that time socionics was made by enthusiasts only, and many "discoveries" have been made just by the force of a quill, or by observation of very small statistics (10, 12, 15 people). In such conditions, people saw some "ghosts" which they perceived as reality and even invented some logical schemes to explain them.

Descriptions of these so-called Reinin's criteria are much contradictory. First and foremost, each of them contradicts to descriptions of particular types.

And finally, big statistics does not confirm but rather disapproves the existence of these reinin's criteria, including this one, Static-Dynamic.

5. The Reinin criteria do seem rather suspect when just looking at them, but it does seem to me that the IJ+EP/IP+EJ dichotomy is important in many ways. I constantly use the words static and dynamic to refer to the groups but I certainly don't mean with it the properties that Reinin claimed these groups have. Maybe the static/dynamic division ought to have new names to make it separate from Reinin's perception.

6. Originally Posted by Dmitri Lytov
And finally, big statistics does not confirm but rather disapproves the existence of these reinin's criteria, including this one, Static-Dynamic.
You are the expert of this board, so I will take your word as final.

7. Originally Posted by Smilingeyes
The Reinin criteria do seem rather suspect when just looking at them, but it does seem to me that the IJ+EP/IP+EJ dichotomy is important in many ways. I constantly use the words static and dynamic to refer to the groups but I certainly don't mean with it the properties that Reinin claimed these groups have. Maybe the static/dynamic division ought to have new names to make it separate from Reinin's perception.
I agree with this, because they do all have the same general functions, the statics and statics, or dynamics and dynamics. So it is a good way to differentiate. It helps me, anyway. Perhaps there are already terms for these though?

8. A static can be called an MBTI and a dynamic an MBTI:J, kinda ironic since the MBTI P types are the ones dynamically bouncing all over the place, starting new peojects, and the MBTI J types wont start doing anything until a P type initiates (by initiate, i don't mean continuing a goal).

9. Thank you Dmitri for the clarification. Please keep doing it, I'm sure we make a lot of mistakes. By the way when was that socionics book in English supposed to be coming out? Who is the publisher? Can you give out all the info we will need to find it? It would be most appreciated.

10. I'd say that J/P description is much similar to Rationality/Irrationality description in socionics, and often used AS SUCH in socionic tests.

Why did Isabel Myers propose such a strange hypothesis that Rationality = EJ + IP, Irrationality = EP + IJ? Probably because the original Jung's descriptions of functions were somewhat vague, and could be extended to other types. For example, being an ENTP, I can apply to myself a lot of what Jung wrote about Extroverted Thinking.

However, Isabel Myers herself understood that her approach was contradictory. She wrote that her description of J/P does not work well for introverted types.

As for static/dynamic in socionics, it does not work, whatever description is proposed Reinin himself did not propose any descriptions of his criteria, they were proposed by Aushra Augusta, but later in 1990 she said (verbatim): "Reinin's criteria are crap, it was a wrong hypothesis".

As for socionic books in English... I know that at least one book (Filatova's ) was going to be published this year. You can contact the publisher, Betty Lou Leaver, leaver@msipress.com , and ask her whether it is already possible to order the book.

11. I'd add that J/P description in MBTI has something absolutely irrelevant both to E/I and Rationality/Irrationality. Myers describes J as closure-focused people, and P as multivariant choice-focused people. In socionics, such bipolarity is associated with two types: Inspector, logical-sensory introvert (which is super-J in MBTI) and Psychologist, intuitive-ethical extrovert (which is super-P in MBTI). This implies that the type Master, sensory-logical introvert, gets high scores in J, even being an irrational type (because he is the closest to the Inspector by his other 3 dichotomies), while the type Mentor, ethical-intuitive extrovert, often gets high scores in P, even being a rational type (because he is the closest to Psychologist by his other three dichotomies). This probably explains why ENFJ and INFJ are rare birds in MBTI - because the criterion P in MBTI is somewhat contaminated with traits associated with N and F.

Note. The above opinion is not just speculation - it was confirmed by two experiments.
1. 108 participants were proposed to recognize socionic types in Keirsey's 16 descriptions.
2. Our Multifactor test (over 2000 participants) has shown high J scores for ISTP, and high P scores for ENFJ (even while ISTJ remained to be super-J, and ENFP super-P).

12. Originally Posted by Dmitri Lytov
As for static/dynamic in socionics, it does not work, whatever description is proposed
This is a very strange thing to say. If one gives a description of static as "a person of the IJ or EP temperaments" and a description of dynamic as " a person of the EJ or IP temperaments" it's rather obvious that it works and is correct.

I completely agree that Reinin's dichotomy of static/dynamic is dysfunctional and should be thrown out with the garbage. The EJ+IP group still has qualities that are common to them and that differ from the EP+IJ group. Thus the groups do exist. Reinin's description of them just was inaccurate.

13. For everyone else who wants the book too. Status = pending for the moment.

14. Originally Posted by Smilingeyes
Originally Posted by Dmitri Lytov
As for static/dynamic in socionics, it does not work, whatever description is proposed
This is a very strange thing to say. If one gives a description of static as "a person of the IJ or EP temperaments" and a description of dynamic as " a person of the EJ or IP temperaments" it's rather obvious that it works and is correct.
Can you propose a valid description of what unites IJ + EP, on the one hand, and IP + EJ, on the other? Just without telling abstract words, such as "they have functions of the same color" etc. - can you give such a description that would work for all the 16 types? I think you'll fail, but if you are sure, please give such a description. And this description should not be "rubber", ambiguous, allowing multiple interpretation.

15. Originally Posted by Dmitri Lytov
I think you'll fail, but if you are sure, please give such a description. And this description should not be "rubber", ambiguous, allowing multiple interpretation.
I think you'll fail as well.

IJs like the taste of banana rhubarb pie, while EPs prefer to celebrate Mother's Day.

16. Originally Posted by Dmitri Lytov

Can you propose a valid description of what unites IJ + EP, on the one hand, and IP + EJ, on the other? Just without telling abstract words, such as "they have functions of the same color" etc. - can you give such a description that would work for all the 16 types? I think you'll fail, but if you are sure, please give such a description. And this description should not be "rubber", ambiguous, allowing multiple interpretation.
All concrete qualities that are statistically correlated to type are simply an observable result. They are not the mechanism. Thus your request is an absurdity as the functions define the types. It is like saying "Can you build a house of wood without using wood?"

17. Anyway, my question is not absurd.

What is common between the Black Intuition, White Logic, Black Sensation, White Ethic, except that they can be united in one loop in the socionic model?

I see, the fact that they are united in one loop makes you (as well as other adepts of the Reinin's criteria) believe that they have something common. But look, a Ferrari car is made of many parts - does it mean that all these parts have a common Ferrari criterion?

So, please describe what is common between Black Intuition, White Logic, Black Sensation, White Ethic? How can we identify these common traits by people's behavior, by some other psychological methods? We CAN identify T/F, E/I, N/S, J/P, and we CAN identify all these 8 functions, so why cannot we identify those miraculous Reinin's criteria? Are they ghosts?

18. Look...

If you take a billion random people and ask them to answer a billion yes and no questions you will get a statistical distribution and find the qualities you are looking for. At the same time you will be able to find all the other possible groups and what qualities separate them.

You will find for example what is the ESTP + ISFP + INFJ group and how it differs from the group not (ESTP+ISFP+INFJ).

What I was talking about originally though was that you made an error in the use of group theory in claiming that some items can not form a group. From the point of view of classical socionics the error is trivial and I fully understand that it is useful for you to disregard the static-dynamic groups but to say that they do not exist is simply, plainly, absolutely, definitely, totally, perfectly wrong.

(edit)I have great respect for your skills in socionics and have no wish to further argue on a trivial matter that is mostly based on the Te vs. Ti difference of viewpoint anyway. But I will continue to use the static-dynamic dichotomy for from the Te viewpoint it has great significance. (/edit)

#### Posting Permissions

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