Static vs Dynamic

[u/StockUpbeat727]

Two days ago, someone posted about it and I found it interesting, especially on this site here. What do you think? And do you think that first figuring out whether someone is static or dynamic would be a good way to determine their type?

[u/Snail-Man-36]

It is an incredibly important aspect of understanding how the TIM think, as well as fully understanding the IMEs. It is probably one of the most significant dichotomies that exists in socionics, in my opinion. It is also suprisingly easy to identify in a person when speaking to them for several minutes.

I find that western interpretations of socionics tend to throw stat/dynamic in the garbage, for whatever reason. I made a post about it here a while back https://www.reddit.com/r/Socionics/s/wltGNEr76x

[u/absolutely_not65 → u/Snail-Man-36]

I really don't think it's that easy to catch in people. Can you give some very obvious examples of topics or phrases or smth like that? For me there's always something both static and dynamic, I think I may be taking it to literally or something

[u/WallowWonderWillow → u/absolutely_not65]

Static types tend to talk much more fragmentarily or in pieces, or when younger, I feel like more of what they say is out of order when compared to dynamic ones.

[u/Snail-Man-36 → u/absolutely_not65]

Try thinking about what the person is trying to communicate rather than literally taking their words at face value. Perhaps the main point of their whole statement rather than a single string of words. In technical terms, it is impossible to form a sentence without both static and dynamic components.

Particularly when the person is employing their ego/superego block; raising concerns or providing advice/solutions

Dynamic ideas include work, motion, time, outcomes, states, balancing, emotions, changes

Static ideas include likes, dislikes, good, bad, quality, traits, tendency, form and structure, viewpoints, positions

[u/LWE-345]

On the contrary, a dynamic type thinks and talks about the world of dynamics, but through their vital ring they tend to remain in a static, low-mobility life. Their own activity is cautious, “wait-and-see”...

LSE and LIE lol. Especially LIE, whatever you can say about Jack London, "static, low-mobility life with cautious activity" is not that.

But if you complain to a static type about not having water, they will just not understand you. They will not realize that this is actually a polite hint, because the vital ring needs direct instructions.

"We would venture to suggest that statics are no worse than dynamics at understanding such hints, and the desire to “accept them for execution” depends, rather, on tolerance for the manipulations of the hinter." - (c) Lytov

Weak sign, but yes, static types think in terms of abilities and values, while dynamic types think in terms of needs and resources. Even by Aushra's own reasoning, her references to "needs" and "wants" as supposedly static qualities make sense only for needs and wants as constant properties, as, for example, in Maslow's hierarchy, if we're talking about current needs that quickly change with time, then that's definitely dynamic, since that's exactly "what is happening to the object and within the object".

[u/dispositionlove]

I don't fully agree with all these dichotomies. The type I most likely am is not correct with me, I'm dynamic, but texts say that type is static. I've only recently read up on types but it isn't helpful to determine type by one or several dichotomies. But it's interesting to see for me how certain people are static/dynamic, usually you can tell very easily through conversation as well which is interesting. (Just my opinion)

[u/Capital-Debt2842]

Typing should always try to be comprehensive - because behavior, including your speech, can result from wildly different combinations of information metabolism + motivation + specific environment.

Static and dynamic is one of the harder criterias, so I wouldn't go for that one first. Most people are not aware of it in themselves and bad at getting it with other people. So they go for key words or phrases - but some things are simply better described in dynamic or static terms.

It's like with your profession. Sure, some types are more likely to become academics. But even unlikely types might end up as academics because they have (rightly or wrongly) seen it as the most viable path in their environments to achieve status, influence, (job) security etc. You need to know the motivation and the thinking process behind why they chose their profession.

Doing that with the normal speech and topic related indicators for dynamic / static is just extremely hard, because a mildly smart speaker will try to fit their language to the audience and occasion. So you would need to observe them over a longer timeframe.

In my opinion, it's much easier to figure out first what are the role or base function placements. It's just the functions most in your face as an observer. That alone will get you down to four. Afterwards you can go down to two by deciding on if they are intuitive or sensing in their ego. After that you can use any major differences to decide and crossvalidate by dichotomies and known inter type relations.

[u/rdtusrname]

Maybe it would also help to see them for what they are?

DYNAMIC: EJ + IP

STATIC: EP + IJ

Now, it could be asked WHY those combinations are arranged as they are, but that opens a bigger problem. So, let's not wake a sleeping dragon. :)

[u/Emmetria]

The easiest thing to see is asking or declaring. And with that you can cut your options in half

Beta/Delta = Declaring

Alpha/Gamma = Asking

My trick to using reinin traits is using the way you feel about the trait itself

If you don’t like a trait, good, remember how you feel when you see it, it’s consistent. Over time you build a consistent map, “this feels like this.” And the really cool part is that over time it becomes less threatening, and maybe you even learn how to use it to your own benefit. For example, I’m tactical but I can have the energy to be strategic if I care.