Toggle Light / Dark / Auto color theme
Toggle table of contents sidebar
Statics and dynamics
¶
Static
/
Dynamic
is one of the 15
Reinin dichotomies
. Statics focus on properties and
structures of things. Dynamics focus on movements and interactions of
things. This is a general characteristic, however, and a person will
display static or dynamic perception at any given moment depending on
which
IM element
is in use.
Static and dynamic types
¶
Static
IM types
**  are :
ILE
,
LII
,
LSI
,
SLE
,
SEE
,
ESI
,
EII
,
IEE
.
Dynamic
IM types
are :
SEI
,
ESE
,
EIE
,
IEI
,
ILI
,
LIE
,
LSE
,
SLI
.
Using the
four-letter code
: statics are EP or
IJ, and dynamics are EJ or IP.
Typical characteristics
¶
Static types
¶
Perceive events in an episodic manner  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.
Dynamic types
¶
Perceive events in a continuous sequence  continuous changes rather
than discrete states.
More inclined to say how stage A leads to stage B, and how stage B
leads to stage C.
Describe events in a specific and concrete manner.
More inclined to talk of movements and interactions of reality.
The stories of dynamics usually involve multiple main characters.
Extended characteristics
¶
Description from
2003 Study of Reinin traits
¶
Statics
¶
Statics view reality as sets of episodes, scenes, pictures. The
consciousness of a Static type is oriented towards perceiving these
separate, individual states, and not a continuous flows of changes.
When statics give descriptions of events, they are inclined to
generalize the event itself and treat that event as just another
event among similar events (” I usually celebrate New year…”).
In stories by Statics there is usually one main character who is the
central focus of the story; this almost never changes in the course
of the story.
In stories of Statics descriptions of states dominate over
descriptions of actions, flow of events. In addition to this,
transition from one state to another is not continuous but rather
jumps from one state to another.
Lexicon: frequent usage of “to be” as a catenative verb (“to become”
“to appear to be”), frequent use of impersonal proposals with modal
verbs (“to want”, “to can”; “it is possible to make” instead of “I
will make”), usage of no-verb constructions.
Dynamics
¶
For Dynamic types, events are viewed as a continuous sequence, which
is not fragmented into separate episodes. The consciousness of a
Dynamic type is oriented towards perceiving continuous flows of
changes as opposed to discrete states.
When describing an event Dynamics are not inclined to generalize and
describe the concrete event that has occurred (“Last New year I went
to…”). In their stories, one gets the impression that the Dynamic
type is at the center of the event that he or she is describing,
“drawn” into it.
In stories by Dynamics usually all characters at some point become
protagonist, assume a central role; this role may even be given to
inanimate objects.
In stories of Dynamics descriptions of processes dominate (that which
is occurring, transpiring, going on, rather than something that has
already occurred).
Lexicon: they use verbs of action which do not have a direct object
(“went”, “made”, “brought”, “settle”, “cheered themselves”, “cried a
little”). In their stories they use many semantic verbs which express
actions of the storyteller and other characters in the story and
interaction between all of them.
Notes
We can draw an analogy to grammatical construction of sentences. The
difference between Static and Dynamic speech is analogous to the
difference between different kinds of verbs in Russian: Static’s speech
corresponds to verbs of perfect (certain past) kind (“I have made”), and
Dynamic’s speech to verbs of imperfect (not certain past) kind (“I
did”). In English language Static speech corresponds to simple
(Indefinite) tenses and Dynamic to long (Continuous) tenses. It is
possible to draw another more technical analogy: modern digital cameras
can save their contents in two different ways: they can either save them
as segments or record a digital video. In a similar way the surrounding
reality is fixed in the human mind: Statics “record” reality as separate
packets (“photographs”), Dynamicsas a continuous “video”.
Examples
Statics:
“During New Year I am exhausted” “It would be desirable to
conduct the New Year…” “It was sad (boring, interesting)” “I stayed at
home” “We were on a trip” “This holiday was better in comparison to the
previous one”
Dynamics:
“The Christmas tree smells nice” “The house is filled with
holiday spirit” “This New Year they drove to the ski area where they
skied all day long” “We emptied the whole bottle” “We gathered together,
sang songs, celebrated” “In the New year I expected a miracle, but as
inevitably greeted by a disappointment”.
Description from
Forms of Cognition
by V. Gulenko
¶
In general terms, this dichotomy refers to orientation towards either
space
(Static) or
time
(Dynamic). The categories of space and
time are vital a priori concepts studied in detail by Immanuel Kant in
“Critique of Pure Reason”, contrasting them as extent and duration.
Statics depend more on space, Dynamics more on time. Filling space with
objects characterizes Static behavior, whereas Dynamics saturate time
with events. Statics cannot stand empty spacethey immediately fill it
with available items on hand. Dynamics cannot stand empty timeboredom,
stagnation, prolonged states of the same condition. In a certain sense,
Statics can be called people of place, Dynamics people of time.
Now consider this dichotomy on the individual levels of communication.
Intellectual Level
¶
Statics tend towards fragmentary-analytic thinking; Dynamics tend
towards associative-synthetic thinking.
Analysis
, as defined by most sources, is the division of a whole
into clearly delimited parts. Analytical work is meant to delineate
boundaries. Whereas
synthesis
is akin to associativity, i.e. the
association of two or more concepts by fuzzy, rapid connections whereby
one occurrence immediately evokes others to mind. Resulting in a
coherent synthetic image with blurred internal boundaries.
The epitomization of Dynamic cognition formed the explanatory basis for
the nature of mental processes in the theory of associationism.
Aristotle first advanced the idea that spontaneous mental images can
converge so closely together that the similarity or contrast of multiple
associations emerges on the basis of contiguity. Later John Locke argued
that ideas of any degree of complexity emerge from the process of
associating simple sensations. In this case he contrasted the
association of ideas against purely semantic connections, which in his
opinion were secondary.
Indeed, eidetic mnemonic techniques showed that with aid of visual
association, it is possible to connect anything in the mind. Here are
some of the eidetic memory techniques originating in antiquity.
Roman orator Cicero used the ‘method of loci’ to memorize his speeches
by heart. He mentally laid out information in the corners of a room,
mentally returning to one corner or another to extract as required.
Medieval Dominican monks studying rhetoric used the same method. They
took a road familiar to them to the last detail and mentally walked down
it, successively laying out along the road statements which would be
presented before the audience. While speaking, they would mentally walk
the route, ‘raising’ key concepts they had previously laid there.
Contemporary advertising cleverly exploits the Dynamic side of human
cognition. It is mainly based on the mechanism of association by context
(manly cowboy next to a pack of cigarettes) or contrast (ordinary
laundry detergent vs. advertised laundry detergent). Judging by this
means of consumer inducement, advertising presumably influences Statics
much less than Dynamics. Statics memorize more effectively when material
is structured in rigid semantic relationships, where each concept is
fixed in memory cells like a computer.
Thus, Dynamics are stronger in synthesis operations (not mere simple
connections, but confluence of associations), while Statics are stronger
in analysis (not just any separation, but clear and precise
delineations). Thus, the discrete/continuous pairing has more to do with
the StaticDynamic dichotomy, than with otherwise customary
Rationality/Irrationality. But then, what exactly is the latter?
Irrationality indicates situationality (predominance of context over
aim), while Rationality indicates regularity (predominance of aim over
context).
Social Level
¶
Differences between Dynamic and Static types at this level corresponds
to the contrast between initiators and finalizers.
Dynamics are stronger at the beginning of any activity: they easily move
and quickly enter the realm of nominal activity. Rapid transitions from
a previous state into a new process of change itselfthis is their
customary life. Statics better sustain and continue what has already
begunthat which is already in motion. They must be preliminarily
excited.
However, in the Dynamic is a process of continuous readjustment of focus
and ‘drift’ of purposes. Because of this, the priorities of Dynamics are
volatile and poor in hierarchical coordination. One wish may be quickly
replaced by another and it is difficult for them to concentrate on any
one specific long-term goal without external support. The strength of
Dynamics is not in retaining goals, but in achieving them; they are
better tacticians than strategists.
The objectives of Statics are more stable and reliable. They know what
they want and are able to maintain long-term focus upon it. They arrange
priorities in their life and work, with well-differentiated primary and
secondary objectives that are rarely reversed. Statics are more
successful strategists than tacticians; they know
what
to do much
better than
how
to do it.
A predominance of Dynamics in any social group renders it unstable,
prone to endless change, and sensitive to external interference.
Conversely, if predominated by Statics, then rapid transformations prove
to be impossible due to excess psychological inertia, rendering the
group stabler but more conservative.
Psychological Level
¶
The StaticDynamic dichotomy controls the degree of equilibrium in the
nervous system. Generally, the nervous system of Statics can be regarded
as balanced and Dynamics as unbalanced.
This is tied to variability in the internal state commonly referred to
as ‘mood’. The mood of Dynamics, even if Rational, can substantially
change or fluctuate for seemingly insignificant reasons (from an outside
observer POV). The Dynamic wants total freedom but is more dependent on
ambient environmental conditions and needs a solid foundation.
Statics possess a relatively autonomous psycho-emotional state; their
mood is difficult to spoil, and equally difficult to raise. For Statics,
providing reliable support to those psychologically depending on them is
a routine situation.
Dynamics often develop a psycho-physiological phenomenon known as
‘synaesthesia’a complex relationship between the sensory modalities
that results in confluence between them. Synchronized perception of
color, sound, smell, and taste as a single complex gives Dynamics a
special vividness in their perception of reality. Sometimes fusion of
sensation is developed to such an extent that internal images appear
indistinguishable from reality. For Statics, given the discreteness of
their mental apparatus, regular synesthesia is usually a rare exception
or the result of special training.
Physical Level
¶
At this level, StaticDynamic manifests as contrasting impulses to
biological homeostasis/heterostasis. Homeostasis I understand as
constancy and heterostasis as variability of the organism and its
surrounding environment.
Dynamics are heterostatically inclined to change their material
conditions of life such as wardrobe, home interior, or furniture
arrangement, for sake of variety or out of boredom. For Statics this
tendency is uncharacteristic. Only with difficulty do they proceed with
changes to their home environment to which they have become accustomed.
They will do so only when it’s easier to yield to circumstantial
pressures, than to resist.
As types with variable metabolism, Dynamics can rapidly grow stout,
though just as quickly lose weight if they fall into a state of
emotional distress. Statics have the opposite problem, of a stabler
weight and build: if already seriously fat (or thin), they remain so for
longer times. Their bodily metabolism is more invariant.
The same laws apply in relation to other physiological parameters such
as temperature, blood pressure, perspiration, etc. For example, the body
temperature of Dynamics may fluctuate during the day even with no overt
symptoms of illness. With sufficient training, Dynamic types can
consciously change these parameters in the desired direction.
Additional Commentary and Notes
¶
See also:
Sociotypograph  determine your sociotype by Renin dichotomies
.
This dichotomy is useful for differentiating types that superficially
may present themselves similarly, such as quasi-identicals or benefit
pairs. For example, if one is not sure whether a person’s type is ILI or
LII, this can be resolved by determining whether this person’s
expression is dominated by static or dynamic constructions. In some
cases, due to a strong emphasis on hidden agenda, the type in position
of benefactor begins to mimic their beneficiary type and may type
themselves as such, mistaking an accentuated interest in hidden agenda
for their base function. However, all benefit pairs lie on different
sides of the Static / Dynamic dichotomy and can be differentiated
according to this trait.
Differentiation of Static from Dynamic types can be done through careful
inspection and analysis of grammatical and lexical constructions present
in written and verbal statements of the individual whose type is under
question. By estimating the relative proportion of static to dynamic
constructions, one can make inferences about another person’s type of
information metabolism. Moreover, since this trait can be estimated from
verbal or written material (email, letters, books, forum posts, etc.)
such inferences can be made from a distance, while not being closely
acquainted with the individual being typed.
People’s expressions usually contain a mixture of both static and
dynamic constructions. This proportion can be related to types roughly
in the following way:
Static: Ji-Ixxj > Pi-Exxp > Pe-Ixxj > Pe-Exxp || Pi-Ixxp < Pi-Exxj <
Je-Ixxp < Je-Exxj :Dynamic
That is, the statements of Ji-Ij and Pi-Ep types usually contain the
greatest proportion of static constructions, while the expressions of
Je-Ip and Je-Ej types contain the greatest proportion of dynamic
constructions. From this information, one can then make inferences about
the information metabolism preferences of a person and narrow down his
or her likely type. For greater accuracy, analyzing the equivalent of at
least one page of text is recommended. In case when all available
material is online posts, it is best to analyze posts that contain
blocks of text rather than one-liners.
Examples
¶
ILE-Ti
(static perception)
:
“When I’m driving in the car, I don’t,
and can’t, have a running record in my mind of everything I’ve seen.
When I’m in the mountains, for example, I’ll see a scene with tall grass
and flowers, next jumping to a scene of a mountain with a cloud hovering
right above, then jumping to another scene and another, next to me, in
front of me, on one side of the road, then maybe on the other. Each
scene is separate from every other scene so I can never get a feel for
the drive as a whole, only unseparated scenes. It gets as crazy as after
having driven a 10-mile stretch of highway hundreds of times, I still
don’t grasp it as a whole, only as parts, and I don’t know where the
curves in the road will be, what specifically will be around the next
curve, and what the relationship is of each scene to another. It means
every drive is entirely different than the one before and the one after
because each time I’m looking at different scenes a little differently
in a different order, so I never get tired of the drive. My husband has
the road memorized after one or two drives and is bored from then on
out. If I write down the drive in words, I can memorize the words and
from then on I’ll know where things are located before I get to them,
rather than having whatever is coming up be a mystery. I recognize the
drive as a whole, as in I’m not lost, I just can’t say what specifically
will be coming up next. This also happens even if the drive is only a
mile long and I’ve driven it hundreds of times. I also had trouble with
organic chemistry because it’s hard for me to grasp physical patterns
and keep them in my mind.
EIE-Fe
(dynamic perception)
:
” I could always imagine the
interconnected systems, what feeds into what, etc. When I drive roads
enough I could probably do them with my eyes closed…lol. In fact if I
think back on the road I used to take to work every day, I could
probably make the whole drive appear in my head from the perspective of
the driver like a played out fast-forward sequence. It’s like for me I
have to have a contiguous picture of everything. For example, there is
this one intersection that, before I moved near the city, I had only
been through a couple of times, and in my mind it had a certain feel
based on how I saw it connecting to the other roads in the city. But
when I started frequenting that area, and came to see all of the other
roads around it, and actually knew and understood from a first person
POV how everything was connected and where other things were in relation
to that intersection, it took on this entirely different character in my
mind… It’s hard to explain, but yeah…everything in my head has to be
connected to something else for me to make sense of it and have a real
grasp of it. Like when I give people directions, I try to put myself in
the shoes of the person who is driving, tell them what they will see and
stuff, rather than just saying “do this do that and this and then you’re
there.” In order to access the directions in my mind, I have to kind of
do the drive in my mind; I can’t just make it a list like “turn right
then left then straight.”
IEE-Fi
(static perception)
:
“I don’t know. I’m really bad at
recognizing what’s happening or where I’m at. I’m always like, “Oh, I
fucking suck.” So I never understand.”
Semantic analysis - Dynamic types [incomplete - needs further work]
LIE-Ni: “But I went home this past Christmas, this was right before I
wrote the song, and I went back to the same bars that I used to go to
and hang out with my friends, and my same friends’ houses, my mom and
dad’s house, and even though I got tired as a kid growing up and hearing
my mom and dad preach to me all the time My dad, he’d say, Son, I’d
say, Yeah? He’d go, What? I’d have to say, “Yes, sir,” you know? And
I got tired of that. But now I realize that those are the same reasons I
still go back home, because of the morals and the values that were
instilled in me and my friends. And I wouldn’t be the man I am today
without the things that were instilled in me as a kid. And that stems
from my family and my friends, and just life in general.”
Theoretical properties of statics and dynamics
¶
Static
IM types
contain static
IM elements
in their
mental
ring
(functions 1 through 4), and dynamic elements in the
vital
ring (5 through 8). This means that they tend to
verbalize things from a static standpoint, while their behavior is
more influenced by dynamic aspects.
Dynamic
IM types
contain dynamic
IM elements
in their
mental
ring, and
static element in the
vital
ring. They tend to verbalize
things from a dynamic standpoint, while their behavior is more
influenced by static aspects.
According to definitions from
classical socionics
,
static elements capture
“snapshots” of reality, while dynamic elements track events in
process
. Static aspects of reality tend to remain more or less fixed
over a significant period of time, while dynamic aspects are changeable
and constantly evolving. Here are some rough descriptions of how the
perception of static and dynamic
IM elements
compare
to each other:
(static) perceives outward sensory data projected by
objects. Unless objects change their appearance significantly, the
impression will not change.
(dynamic) perceives internal reactions to sensory
data. Each perception of the same thing can be different depending on
the observer’s changing internal state.
(static) perceives inherent potential in objects.
Objects don’t tend to change their nature much over time, though new
circumstances can reveal hitherto unnoticed aspects of that
potentiality.
(dynamic) perceives internal reactions to external
potentiality. Today the possibilities might seem inviting and
favorable, but tomorrow they might produce a sense of foreboding or
despondency.
(static) perceives logical interrelations between
objects, which by definition belong to a certain class or location,
unless the point of reference is changed.
(dynamic) perceives what those objects are doing and
what is being done with them. One and the same object can be used
effectively or ineffectively.
(static) perceives connections of a subjective,
emotional nature that exist between objects. These feelings arise
gradually and change little until a significant disruption occurs.
(dynamic) perceives how objects are interacting on an
emotional level. One and the same object can interact very different
with a stable set of other objects depending on a variety of factors.
See also
¶
J/P switch
- the hypothesis of a correspondence
between static/dynamic and the
Myers-Briggs
dichotomy J/P.
Type
dichotomies
¶
Rationality and irrationality
Extraversion and introversion
Sensing and intuition
Ethics and logic
Static and dynamic
Process and result
Positivist and negativist
Asking and declaring
Constructivist and emotivist
Carefree and farsighted
Yielding and obstinate
Tactical and strategic
Merry and serious
Judicious and decisive
Asking and declaring