MBTI/Socionics and Mistakes about "Logic"

[Varlawend]

At first blush, this idea of blurry, post-hoc dichotomies kind of made sense to me. However, upon further examination, I’m not sure that it works very well. In any case, I can think of two reasons for the existence of this idea.

One is that when you type people at first, you are using other dichotomies which you have more reason to trust in the reliability of. Only later do these other dichotomies become visible. However, in that case, once these new dichotomies become visible to you, then even if they were more subtle, aren’t they then usable for typing in the future (not post-hoc) if you happen to notice them?

There is at least one more thing that could happen though: it may be that the dichotomies apply to a person in such a way that they are not visible at the individual level, but only at a more social or collective level. Granted, even in this case they still apply to the individual in a sense, just in a way that might not be so reliable for typing. Maybe this corresponds to what it means for a dichotomy to be useful at an abstract level? I think there are some dichotomies that fit this to some degree, such as Aristocratic/Democratic, Asking/Declaring, and even Central/Peripheral and Ascending/Descending. These may occasionally stand out in an individual, but they become especially evident socially and collectively (in things like Quadras, Order Rings, etc.)

Today, I’ll just do one dichotomy, because I have things to do.

Static/Dynamic as I use it:

Static in the most general sense means orientation to space (stationarity), and Dynamic means orientation to time (temporality).

At the intellectual level, static thinking is discrete and fragmented, and the various parts do not mix. It consists in rigid semantic connections, such as what is stored in the memory cell of a computer. For memorization, it is helpful for statics to fix the material on paper or some other tangible medium. Statics create better clear schemes or designs with minimal change. Dynamic thinking is continuous, a holistic image with moving boundaries. Dynamics have better associative memory, combinations of two concepts with a conditional temporal connection. One concept, appearing, immediately causes the other in consciousness. Dynamics create better models which convey changes, or design projects that remind people of their personal experience.

At the social level, static corresponds to the division into classes, niches or specializations. This specialization leads to stability but conservatism; rapid changes cannot be easily implemented. Dynamics corresponds to diversification of resources, which makes the group much more unstable and sensitive to outside interference. It is a more holistic group where one thing affects many other things, not as autonomous and specialized. However, it can better endure supply interruptions and change of values.

At the psychological level, static corresponds to a balanced nervous system. This means that the mood is difficult to raise or to spoil. Dynamic corresponds to an unbalanced nervous system, where one thought alone quickly carries away into a chain of associations. This can lead to rapid improvement or deterioration of mood, for reasons that seem very small from an outside observer.

At the physical level, statics only tend to change the aspects of their physical setting for a specific reason rather than just because they are bored. They are more stable in parameters such as body weight, temperature, blood pressure, sweating: these fluctuate more slowly and within smaller limits than dynamic types. Dynamic types, on the other hand, can change their wardrobe, housing interior, arrangement of furniture in the apartment just for the sake of diversity or boredom. Their body weight, temperature, blood pressure, etc. are less stable and fluctuate more widely.

If you want, we can later consider how this applies specifically to functions, temperaments, club dyads, types, etc. Examples can help add clarity and groundedness.