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).

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¶

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.

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