Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Dynamic vs. Static Types And Their Imagination/Thinking Process

  1. #1
    Fay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Europe
    TIM
    NF
    Posts
    1,283
    Mentioned
    162 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Dynamic vs. Static Types And Their Imagination/Thinking Process

    I wonder how does the inner mental landscape of dynamic and static types looks like? I have read that static types are more prone to think in words and when they try to visualize something, it's mainly in a form of a static image, while dynamic types imagine things in movement, like they have this constant movie in their mind. Is this true?

    Do people really see not moving images in their mind? Or do people really don't see images in their fantasies and they just use words? Is it real? It blows my mind , I have to know.


  2. #2
    Wavebury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    knowhere
    TIM
    LSI-C
    Posts
    5,787
    Mentioned
    223 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    It happens that I see moving images in my mind, but it's rare and happens in a way I can't predict. To give you an example, I was sitting at the doctor's waiting room last week and suddenly visualized an image of a ancient Greek-ish temple being enroached by a stormy sea. It wasn't hallucination, I didn't see it literally, if you think I'm crazy, it's just like something that appears in my mind's eye and I have no control over it and the impression is gone as soon I notice it. It has a dream-like and symbolic character. The idea this invoked for me was the Witch Circe's island in the Odyssey. I think I have seen a film version of the Odyssey where Circe's temple and island looks kinda like that but I'm not sure why that impression came up then and there.

    When I think about stuff to do, I visualize the place I'm going to go to in my head, as well as how to get there. This doesn't happen spontaneously like the occasional visualization of symbols I mention above, but rather takes conscious effort. I see the places I'm going to, the places I have to get through to get there, and the actions I have to perform to travel (walking, talking transport, trains, planes, cars etc). For example, to get to the gym today, I visualized myself taking the subway and working out at the gym. Since the gym is somewhere I am used to going it's not so necessary to visualize it but it helps "set me in motion". If it's somewhere I've never been I at least visualize the actions to perform in the places I do know that are in between my house and my destination.

    I don't really think in words, which is why putting things in words is like a second layer being built upon my cognition, but one that is absolutely essential for communication. Words themselves don't seem concrete, only what they are associated with does.

  3. #3
    Kiba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    TIM
    ISTp SLI-0,1Te sxsp
    Posts
    3,419
    Mentioned
    413 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Freya View Post
    while dynamic types imagine things in movement, like they have this constant movie in their mind. Is this true?
    Yes.
    do people really see not moving images in their mind? Or do people really don't see images in their fantasies and they just use words?
    afaik thats not how static types think, but this:

    Static Types
    Perceive events in an episodic manner as discrete states rather than continuous changes.
    More inclined to say how stages A, B and C are.
    Describe events in a general manner and by comparing them to other similar events.
    More inclined to talk of properties and structures of reality.
    The stories of statics usually involve one constant main character.
    But maybe you've about in a different source?

    What I get from it is that the way of perceiving or processing events is different. Statics narrative is more focalized, while dynamic narrative is continuous. While an static would see an independent event in their mind (as a gif repeating over and over maybe), an dynamic would see how x result or connect with y and y with z .
    Last edited by Kiba; 10-01-2018 at 04:19 PM.

  4. #4
    schwiftyrickty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Kansas City
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    345
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'm fairly certain I'm static and my thoughts are almost 100% verbal. I have no inner movie in my head to speak of unless I make a conscious effort.
    7w6 9w1 2w3 sx/? RLUAI(rl|U|ai)

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    398
    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Oh, interesting.
    Everything in my head moves, can barely force it to keep a word or an image still for 2 seconds... : 3

  6. #6
    schwiftyrickty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Kansas City
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    345
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'm extremely jealous of the ability to think in moving images. I can barely think in still images, though I can if I try. It just doesn't come very naturally. My normal thoughts consist entirely of a constant scrolling monologue and whatever song is stuck in my head at the time. Weed makes me able to think more visually though. That's the main reason I smoke it.
    7w6 9w1 2w3 sx/? RLUAI(rl|U|ai)

  7. #7
    Exodus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    8,392
    Mentioned
    324 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I do find that I tend to "jump" from one thought to another. This seems to be primarily Ne.

    There is some truth to the discrete/continuous distinction in general, even if it is a bit hazy. However I wouldn't equate static/dynamic with verbal/nonverbal. That seems more like rational/irrational.

  8. #8
    schwiftyrickty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Kansas City
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    345
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    I do find that I tend to "jump" from one thought to another. This seems to be primarily Ne.

    There is some truth to the discrete/continuous distinction in general, even if it is a bit hazy. However I wouldn't equate static/dynamic with verbal/nonverbal. That seems more like rational/irrational.
    Rational being verbal and irrational being nonverbal? How so exactly?
    7w6 9w1 2w3 sx/? RLUAI(rl|U|ai)

  9. #9
    Exodus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    8,392
    Mentioned
    324 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by schwiftyrickty View Post
    Rational being verbal and irrational being nonverbal? How so exactly?
    Yes

    https://wholesocionics.herokuapp.com...mation-Domains

  10. #10
    schwiftyrickty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Kansas City
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    345
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    Could I be rational after all?! Maybe I'm EII. Oh no. Back to the drawing board. Aheh
    7w6 9w1 2w3 sx/? RLUAI(rl|U|ai)

  11. #11
    schwiftyrickty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Kansas City
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    345
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Or ESE. I still think I'm static though
    7w6 9w1 2w3 sx/? RLUAI(rl|U|ai)

  12. #12
    Rebelondeck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    1,934
    Mentioned
    171 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Dynamic and static can be misleading adjectives when applied to thinking processes due to their dictionary meanings; interactive and detached are perhaps better. The first inclination of interactive thinkers is to incorporate the subject and or others into the feedback loops of their rationalization processes whereas detached thinkers after acquiring sufficient information prefer to rationalize in isolation without interactive participation or feedback. I'm quite sure that actual visualizations will be comparable for both. Dynamic and static are perhaps better adjectives for resulting output rather than for the processes used to produce the output because all thinking styles must have dynamic processes that cause information to undergo transformation.....

    a.k.a. I/O

  13. #13

    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    TIM
    ILI - C
    Posts
    1,810
    Mentioned
    114 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    IME, the difference between static and dynamic types comes out in how they discuss typology.

    Static types are more comfortable talking about cognitive processes as Jung initially framed them. "Introversion", "Extraversion", "Thinking", "Feeling", etc. are all seen as static elements. They may move and interact in some way, but they retain their integrity as though they have fixed properties.

    Dynamic types are more comfortable talking about cognitive process... more dynamically. The ideas if "introverting" or "extraverting" come more naturally because these types naturally see the world as fluid and dependent on alterable conditions. They naturally see the world in a state of flux.

    I'd really like some feedback from dynamic types (and static types) to see if this analysis holds true for them.

  14. #14

    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    398
    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Pretty sure I'm irrational and dynamic.
    I, per say, consider people's self type as a base to expand, a way to see where they "come from" and where they "are going" regarding thoughts; added to the fact that a lot of theory seems "stuck", immobile, stagnant to me. I doubt everything and very much dislike being told "this is how it is" without having any room to "look at it from all angles"; I find very easy the see socionics as an ever flowing process.
    I tend to go back and forth about things, argue with myself, look for new perspectives to get things moving, otherwise I can grow very... distressed?... about the stillness. I used to envy people who seemed to have everything "set in stone" in their head... yet now, I know it's their thing and it's fine for them, not for me, that this world needs both, and it's useless to argue about it.
    I get very bored reading theory, so I did skip a lot of it and wait to find a thread where people are discussing about it, where there are more than one point of view, where people can exchange and expand on stuff, where stuff move... where even when some do the "static theory', it's rarely a pages long soliloquy.

    I read what I wrote, and it's obvious that I'm not writting "dynamic" theory... : P

  15. #15

    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    TIM
    ILI - C
    Posts
    1,810
    Mentioned
    114 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lilith iris View Post
    Pretty sure I'm irrational and dynamic.
    I, per say, consider people's self type as a base to expand, a way to see where they "come from" and where they "are going" regarding thoughts; added to the fact that a lot of theory seems "stuck", immobile, stagnant to me. I doubt everything and very much dislike being told "this is how it is" without having any room to "look at it from all angles"; I find very easy the see socionics as an ever flowing process.
    I tend to go back and forth about things, argue with myself, look for new perspectives to get things moving, otherwise I can grow very... distressed?... about the stillness. I used to envy people who seemed to have everything "set in stone" in their head... yet now, I know it's their thing and it's fine for them, not for me, that this world needs both, and it's useless to argue about it.
    I get very bored reading theory, so I did skip a lot of it and wait to find a thread where people are discussing about it, where there are more than one point of view, where people can exchange and expand on stuff, where stuff move... where even when some do the "static theory', it's rarely a pages long soliloquy.

    I read what I wrote, and it's obvious that I'm not writting "dynamic" theory... : P
    Danka.

  16. #16
    Exodus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    8,392
    Mentioned
    324 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by schwiftyrickty View Post
    Could I be rational after all?! Maybe I'm EII. Oh no. Back to the drawing board. Aheh
    Well...Ne does tend to be a more "verbal" element in a certain sense. But I wouldn't recommend using the rational/irrational or static/dynamic dichotomies to type yourself, like I said these things are a bit hazy (unlike the strength and value dichotomies).

Posting Permissions

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