# Static vs Dynamic



## TruthDismantled (Jan 16, 2013)

I find Gulenko's description of Dynamic vs Static is fairly different to the Reinin Dichotomies.

When I describe things to someone, or recall an event it is often delivered in separate chunks that don't follow a logical order. I just kinda remember different fragments then place them in. 

However, Gulenko also explains that statics tend to have clear objectives and take long-term plans to reach them and they're more stable and consistent in their goals. NOPE, NOPE, NOPE. I'm none of these, yet I relate well to statics as described in Reinin's dichotomies. 

Burst of energy at the beginning of tasks then fizzle out - YEP
Not sure what I want - YEP

An example of something I've said: (Dynamic?)

"I accidentally ate a chicken wing last night. Was munching then I remembered [I'm now vegetarian] like arrr f*ck. Thennnnnnnn..I grabbed another one".


----------



## Schweeeeks (Feb 12, 2013)

Maybe it's strategic vs static?


> Strategy
> Focus on goals, and manipulate them, with methods unsettled.
> Methods are defined by, and modified to fit goals.
> Prefers to defend goals. Doesn't like to be forced to deviate from them.





> 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.
> ...


Types that are static and tactical: ILE, LSI, ESI, IEE
Types that are dynamic and strategic: SEI, EIE, LIE, SLI

It sounds like you are definitely tactical. 

* *




TacticsTactical types focus their attention on their current situation, on the nearest action, on the actual choices—in other words, they are more oriented at their course, the chain of events, instead of the goal towards which this chain may lead.
As a rule, they do not "fix" for themselves a single "point" which they want to hit or reach—in other words, a goal. Thus, the direction in which they are moving is liable to change.
In contrast to Strategic types, they are not inclined to constantly compare their current actions with the desired end state ("goal"). The emerging goals are evaluated in accordance to how well they fit their current route (how well the goal coincides with the direction they are adhering to).
All possibilities of events occurring now or those that have occurred in the past (that which has occurred or could have occurred) i.e. different scenarios, outcomes, they perceive as equivalent (equally likely to happen and equally likely to have happened).
They consciously do not set goals or do it very rarely (when pressured by the circumstances). They avoid setting distant (very long-term or global) goals: "Why plan—you still need to live to that moment".
Tactical types consciously operate with routes/pathways—they examine and contrast many different possible variations of present events and actions they can undertake (i.e. pathways), arrange them according to some kind of criteria (for example, for optimal efficiency).
If Tactical types assess their actions to be directed towards a concrete goal, when the goal is reached they feel a sensation of emptiness, disappointment.
Lexicon: in speech of tacticians words "way" "means" "methods" can often be heard. They are not inclined to speak of the purpose of their actions but rather substitute it with other concepts ("necessity" "dream" "interest" "task" and so on)



That would narrow down your type to ILE or IEI, esp if you are _sure_ of being Irrational.


----------



## TruthDismantled (Jan 16, 2013)

Schweeeeks said:


> Maybe it's strategic vs static?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah I believe so.

When I'm writing essays for instance, I don't usually have my own opinion on the correct answer to include in my conclusion or an idea of how the essay will end. I'm kind of learning as I'm going along. This can flop for me though because I can get towards the end of an essay and realize I should have added a paragraph two paragraphs back and it ruins the flow lol. 

Tbh I'm pretty bad at both. It's just..effort spending time thinking about how to go about winning in a video game or in sports. I don't like strategy games at all, or sports requiring preparation to be honest. This is why I like sprint sports, swimming or athletics, it's pure power and strength. I get too impatient with Chess for instance, and I'm not stupid - I can do well if I give myself the time. But pfffft I will not spend more than 5 minutes thinking about a Chess move.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

TruthDismantled said:


> However, Gulenko also explains that statics tend to have clear objectives and take long-term plans to reach them and they're more stable and consistent in their goals.


Where does he say this?



TruthDismantled said:


> Yeah I believe so.
> 
> When I'm writing essays for instance, I don't usually have my own opinion on the correct answer to include in my conclusion or an idea of how the essay will end. I'm kind of learning as I'm going along. This can flop for me though because I can get towards the end of an essay and realize I should have added a paragraph two paragraphs back and it ruins the flow lol.


That sounds like Process for you is more important than Result. You have trouble going back and amending things. Usually Result types don't have problems with this and will flip back many times even in conversation.

Process - Result


----------



## TruthDismantled (Jan 16, 2013)

cyamitide said:


> Where does he say this?
> 
> 
> That sounds like Process for you is more important than Result. You have trouble going back and amending things. Usually Result types don't have problems with this and will flip back many times even in conversation.
> ...


In the wikisocion page it says:
"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."

*Well usually when I have a lot of different things to do I kind of keep switching between each one. So if I need to do the dishes I'll think, "oh let me just take out the washing, oh before I do the dishes I just need to phone my friend. Ooo let me quickly make some tea"... and 2 hours later I remember that the washing still needs doing.

So this, to me, seems like tactical and result actually.


----------

