I’m about to divide people into two rough groups. Please excuse my stereotyping of the complexity that is inherent in each of as individuals and as a society. The world is not neatly divided into categories and types. I’m using this for illustrative purposes, to give insight into how people grow at the deepest levels. This is not “true” or “right” in any sense. It is not a judgment of people’s value or potential. Interpret this with an open mind and look for a preponderance of characteristics, not a literal interpretation. Everyone has elements of both, but look at the most central issues and desires and see how they fit. Consider the approach and see if it helps you understand the personal growth process and two wildly different sorts of paths.
With regard to personal growth, people seem to fall into two rough groups. The first is a group that stabilizes early in life, from a personality, trans-formative growth perspective. The second is a somewhat smaller group that mixes in varying doses of seeking, reflecting, and thriving on paradigm shifts.
I’ll refer to these two broad types of people as “statics” and “dynamics.” I’m not trying to be pejorative, but these seem to apply as a simplistic moniker. I have seen many people, from very successful to seemingly wasted lives, fit in each category.
The static type gets through life by sticking to their knitting, sharpening their saw, focusing on daily activities, seeing a life filled with many axioms. Like many people, they gradually evolve through their “issues,” mostly by making them irrelevant in their current life. In other words, statics change themselves by changing their circumstances. Statics may live full and enriched lives. They do so more with functional striving than with seeking and reflection. If a static type person enters adulthood with a good foundation and average or less emotional drama, they can be highly successful and balanced through life. If emotional and resultant intellectual damage is severe before they coalesce, this type of person can be challenged to ever live as more than an idiosyncratic outcome of their childhood.
The dynamic type is less likely to accept the status quo, will challenge thinking in general, and not just the thinking of others. I don’t refer to petty intellectual dialog or argumentativeness. I refer to broad existential, societal, personal, interpersonal issues and so forth. Dynamics question the basis of our thought, being, and existence. Dynamics seek an elusive state of growth and awareness, involving both states of mind or being along with outcomes in the world as they experience it. They are often restless with their progress or circumstance, with a tendency toward introspection that may seem excessive or unproductive. They expect a level of ease and openness to be possible in life, for themselves and others. They believe change can be achieved on many levels and not always in sequential, linear ways. The dynamics evolve through life by changing their perspective, mindset, state of being, and behavior. Their circumstances are less central in their evolution, changing more as a result than a cause (for illustrative purposes, it is not really black and white).
Summarizing:
Static types see their worldview and internal experience as relatively stable and authoritative. They evolve and grow themselves from the perspective of an actor in the world as they know it to be.
Dynamic types see their worldview and internal experience as an illusion or probable distortion. They evolve and grow themselves from the perspective of a fluid consciousness trying to meld into a cohesive fabric.
People don’t describe themselves this way. Most people exhibit both types, but mostly exhibit one polarity for issues of greatest importance to them.
You might have guessed, but I classify myself as a dynamic type. I’ve learned this distinction by observing a large circle of people over more decades than I care to admit.
This distinction is helpful in that both approaches work in many ways. However, you won’t get strongly static types to truly ponder the nature of reality. You won’t often get the strong static type to engage fully in processes that disrupt paradigms to drive new realizations and transformation. On the other hand, you won’t often get strongly dynamic types to realize that consistent application of traditional approaches to developing one’s self and life are quite effective. Statics miss the opportunity to see the world in dramatically new ways. Dynamics miss the opportunity to see growth and results from striving to execute established practices in a learn, practice, grow, repeating style that works for many successful static types.
In this static vs dynamic contrast, you can see people have more paths and choices than they usually realize. Ask yourself, what type am I usually? In what areas? Where do I miss growth paths as a result. As you relate to others, you’ll also find you can create undesired tension by applying static type change “advice” to dynamics or vice versa. Like matching thinking and language styles in NLP, being aware of the static and dynamic style in your relationships is very rewarding.
With regard to personal growth, people seem to fall into two rough groups. The first is a group that stabilizes early in life, from a personality, trans-formative growth perspective. The second is a somewhat smaller group that mixes in varying doses of seeking, reflecting, and thriving on paradigm shifts.
I’ll refer to these two broad types of people as “statics” and “dynamics.” I’m not trying to be pejorative, but these seem to apply as a simplistic moniker. I have seen many people, from very successful to seemingly wasted lives, fit in each category.
The static type gets through life by sticking to their knitting, sharpening their saw, focusing on daily activities, seeing a life filled with many axioms. Like many people, they gradually evolve through their “issues,” mostly by making them irrelevant in their current life. In other words, statics change themselves by changing their circumstances. Statics may live full and enriched lives. They do so more with functional striving than with seeking and reflection. If a static type person enters adulthood with a good foundation and average or less emotional drama, they can be highly successful and balanced through life. If emotional and resultant intellectual damage is severe before they coalesce, this type of person can be challenged to ever live as more than an idiosyncratic outcome of their childhood.
The dynamic type is less likely to accept the status quo, will challenge thinking in general, and not just the thinking of others. I don’t refer to petty intellectual dialog or argumentativeness. I refer to broad existential, societal, personal, interpersonal issues and so forth. Dynamics question the basis of our thought, being, and existence. Dynamics seek an elusive state of growth and awareness, involving both states of mind or being along with outcomes in the world as they experience it. They are often restless with their progress or circumstance, with a tendency toward introspection that may seem excessive or unproductive. They expect a level of ease and openness to be possible in life, for themselves and others. They believe change can be achieved on many levels and not always in sequential, linear ways. The dynamics evolve through life by changing their perspective, mindset, state of being, and behavior. Their circumstances are less central in their evolution, changing more as a result than a cause (for illustrative purposes, it is not really black and white).
| Characteristic | Static Types | Dynamic Types |
| Success is defined by | Safety & security, evolved manifestation, abundance, peace of mind | Peace of mind, transformation, emergence, safety & security, abundance |
| Logic | A representation of a order in the universe and our reality | A pure mathematical tool, useful, but not the basis of reality |
| Paradigms | Change slowly, the world “is” something gradually absorbed | Fluid tools of our thinking, can always be replaced, but often difficult to see through |
| Change and growth | A gradual, risky, incremental, stepwise, process | A thrilling, punctuated, ride with both incremental and discontinuous change |
| Facts | There are many facts, some in their head, other attainable | There are few or no facts, but rather patterns of predictability and effectiveness |
Static types see their worldview and internal experience as relatively stable and authoritative. They evolve and grow themselves from the perspective of an actor in the world as they know it to be.
Dynamic types see their worldview and internal experience as an illusion or probable distortion. They evolve and grow themselves from the perspective of a fluid consciousness trying to meld into a cohesive fabric.
People don’t describe themselves this way. Most people exhibit both types, but mostly exhibit one polarity for issues of greatest importance to them.
You might have guessed, but I classify myself as a dynamic type. I’ve learned this distinction by observing a large circle of people over more decades than I care to admit.
This distinction is helpful in that both approaches work in many ways. However, you won’t get strongly static types to truly ponder the nature of reality. You won’t often get the strong static type to engage fully in processes that disrupt paradigms to drive new realizations and transformation. On the other hand, you won’t often get strongly dynamic types to realize that consistent application of traditional approaches to developing one’s self and life are quite effective. Statics miss the opportunity to see the world in dramatically new ways. Dynamics miss the opportunity to see growth and results from striving to execute established practices in a learn, practice, grow, repeating style that works for many successful static types.
In this static vs dynamic contrast, you can see people have more paths and choices than they usually realize. Ask yourself, what type am I usually? In what areas? Where do I miss growth paths as a result. As you relate to others, you’ll also find you can create undesired tension by applying static type change “advice” to dynamics or vice versa. Like matching thinking and language styles in NLP, being aware of the static and dynamic style in your relationships is very rewarding.
