Reinin dichotomies discussion

[XoX]

See if I can get more discussion going on in this subforum. From the long text below I collected here all the questions I'm seeking an answer to:

What is the core difference of between being strategic and farsighted?

How do these pairs of dichotomies manifest (value-wise, behavior-wise): careless & strategic, careless & tactical, farsighted & strategic, farsighted & tactical?

How do I know between "suspicions" caused by being too farsighted and "suspicions" caused by negativity. Both seem to focus on what could go wrong.

How does merry and serious manifest (in values and behavior)?

Here comes the long story...

So my main concern is these dichotomies:
strategic vs tactical
farsighted vs careless
negative vs positive
aristocrat vs democratic
merry vs serious

I'm getting pretty sure I'm aristocratic type (as so many claim). There is always room for doubt but the way I seem to assign common social properties to groups of people would suggest aristocracy (even if don't particularly care about or respect power structures except as a tool).

I can't see myself as a careless type. Even if I rarely make bad moves because of strong emotional states or something generally my attitude to life is more or less defined by my "farsightedness". I would say I am farsighted to the point of it being painful.

I do tend to think I'm strategic too as I am more interested in the goal than the method to get there. However I am not someone who always has a goal in mind. It is just that when I do have a goal I focus on it over the methods. I might not understand this dichotomy properly and might confuse being strategic and being farsighted.

Now here is a question: What is the core difference of between being strategic and farsighted? How do these pairs of dichotomies manifest: careless & strategic, careless & tactical, farsighted & strategic, farsighted & tactical?

I tend to see myself negativist > positivist. It is well visible e.g. in my intellectual and social suspiciousness and my focus on what could go wrong instead of focusing on possibilities. However I might confuse this with being far-sighted too. Perhaps my focus on "what could go wrong" is not negativism but being farsighted?

Question: How do I know between "suspicions" caused by being too farsighted and "suspicions" caused by negativity.

Finally I kind of see myself as merry > serious but then I don't fully grasp this dichotomy. I might be serious after all.

Question: How does merry and serious manifest (in values and behavior)? I know merry=Fe and serious=Te but that is not enough.

I haven't yet considered the other dichotomies well enough to say this or that really.

[Not A Communist Shill]

Reading the descriptions of Merry vs. Serious, it seems that:

Merry types speak like this: 'this is what I think...', while Serious types are more: 'the correct way of doing this is...'

Also, it says for Merry types, 'the ''name'' behind the person is of secondary relevance' - I think this means that Serious types treat a name as a fact about a person, while a Merry person is more inclined to know someone by their unique personality or whatever. The description makes it sound as though a Merry person doesn't know where they end and the next person begins - the name of a person isn't important, and a person's identity is very much in flux - for Serious types, someone's identity seems more set in stone. The description says that Merry types have no rituals involved in getting to know somebody - i.e. Merry types identify with others quickly and easily, as though they share the same emotional background (i.e. melting pot). Serious types seem more impersonal and detached from the emotional background - they see themselves as a distinct entity from others, and yet they see everybody as operating under the same rules (the serious types are described as 'the objectivists'). Merry types are more inclined to agree to disagree - the description has the quote ''Well you say it is like that but I disagree'' - they are subjectivists, and are more inclined to accept that other people have different points of view (though of course they might not like it ) - for Serious types, it says, 'they suppose others can have their views, hold their position, but at the same time, do not consider that any action can be viewed true or false depending on their point of view'.

[XoX]

Reading the descriptions of Merry vs. Serious, it seems that:

Merry types speak like this: 'this is what I think...', while Serious types are more: 'the correct way of doing this is...'

Also, it says for Merry types, 'the ''name'' behind the person is of secondary relevance' - I think this means that Serious types treat a name as a fact about a person, while a Merry person is more inclined to know someone by their unique personality or whatever. The description makes it sound as though a Merry person doesn't know where they end and the next person begins - the name of a person isn't important, and a person's identity is very much in flux - for Serious types, someone's identity seems more set in stone. The description says that Merry types have no rituals involved in getting to know somebody - i.e. Merry types identify with others quickly and easily, as though they share the same emotional background (i.e. melting pot). Serious types seem more impersonal and detached from the emotional background - they see themselves as a distinct entity from others, and yet they see everybody as operating under the same rules (the serious types are described as 'the objectivists'). Merry types are more inclined to agree to disagree - the description has the quote ''Well you say it is like that but I disagree'' - they are subjectivists, and are more inclined to accept that other people have different points of view (though of course they might not like it ) - for Serious types, it says, 'they suppose others can have their views, hold their position, but at the same time, do not consider that any action can be viewed true or false depending on their point of view'.

I tend to relate to merry. Isn't merry=? Why can't I then relate to descriptions of ego people that much. Perhaps I misunderstand something in this or their descriptions. Based on this I'm really very merry. The parts which describe how merry people tend to know people via their personality than via facts like names is very me. Those kind of facts which are separate from the person mean very little to me and I tend to not pay much attention to them. I'm not sure about whether I'm detached or attached to the emotional background but other than that part the merry sounds a lot like me. I'd say I'm merry.

[anndelise]

I had started trying to sort through the merry vs serious as described in http://the16types.no-ip.info/forums/...pic.php?t=5881 but it was irritating me.

There seems to be a mishmash of things going on. Many things said of Merry are often attributed to Fi, to democratic, to aristocratic, to Xi functions, and to p.

Many things of Serious are often attributed to Tx, aristocratic, Xe functions, (and here is where I gave up).

[anndelise]

Here's a small attempt at sorting the Merry/Serious out, and only covers one aspect of it.

Merry: When people gather, for whatever reason, Merry pays attention to the general emotional background.
If asked, "How was the meeting?", reply may be something like "Gah, it was boring as hell", "We had so much fun!!", "I coulda had more fun having my teeth pulled". (Yes, these are over the top responses, but the thing they have in common is talking about the emotional aspects of the meeting.)

Serious: When people gather, for whatever reason, Serious pays attention to the concept/actions that occurred.
If asked, "How was the meeting?", reply may be something like "Susan talked incessantly and wouldn't let anyone get a word in edge-wise", "Mark kept trying to hit on Alice", "Alice wouldn't stop smacking her gum", "and Bossman gave us a shit load of work to do by Tuesday afternoon."

I would suggest asking others if they see this distinction as well.

edited to say: I'm sure the responses could be refined.
For example: Maybe adding for Merry: "Susan was excited, but Alice seemed agitated"..but I'm not sure if that's right either as I can see Fi creatives saying that.

[Logos]

Here's a small attempt at sorting the Merry/Serious out, and only covers one aspect of it.

Merry: When people gather, for whatever reason, Merry pays attention to the general emotional background.
If asked, "How was the meeting?", reply may be something like "Gah, it was boring as hell", "We had so much fun!!", "I coulda had more fun having my teeth pulled". (Yes, these are over the top responses, but the thing they have in common is talking about the emotional aspects of the meeting.)

Serious: When people gather, for whatever reason, Serious pays attention to the concept/actions that occurred.
If asked, "How was the meeting?", reply may be something like "Susan talked incessantly and wouldn't let anyone get a word in edge-wise", "Mark kept trying to hit on Alice", "Alice wouldn't stop smacking her gum", "and Bossman gave us a shit load of work to do by Tuesday afternoon."

I would suggest asking others if they see this distinction as well.

edited to say: I'm sure the responses could be refined.

Part of the problem is that I could easily seeing an ESE doing a whole lot of what is mentioned in Serious if I were to ask an ESE how the meeting was.

[anndelise]

Here is the second part of Merry/Serious...remember, I'm just going by what that one link has for them and trying to drudge through the bad translation, with some influence by personal observations/connections.

:

Merry is able to establish/determine emotional distance between themselves and others, and/or between others. Merry is able to adapt and regulate that distance, bringing it closer or moving it apart. As such," getting to know somebody" is not treated as a special activity in and of itself.

Serious prefers to let another person, situation, or other moderate the emotional distance so that closer dialogue/contact can begin. As in, letting an outside entity take care of keeping the distance or allowing further closeness instead of having to take care of that themselves. Formality and rituals would be one example of such a moderating entity. Due to the desire or need for the external moderator, "getting to know somebody" is treated as a special activity in and of itself.


Note: a lot of what was written regarding ritual and formality and name and title and all that jazz seemed off to a few serious types. Perhaps the above will make a little more sense. ?

[anndelise]

Part of the problem is that I could easily seeing an ESE doing a whole lot of what is mentioned in Serious if I were to ask an ESE how the meeting was.

I'm trying to think of the ESE I've known. I don't think I paid much attention to that.
Most of my arguments with ESEs have involved the ESE trying to get me to agree to an ethical judgment call while being unwilling or hesitant to give me all the details of the situation.

One INFp I know had the passing thought that maybe
Fe/Ti = objective values, subjective decisions
Fi/Te = subjective values, objective decisions

This fits part 2 of what the interpretations of Merry/Serious I gave so far, but I don't know how well it fits part 1.
I can sorta see it....but then i can sorta see it the other way too.
And then the question..would the concept of subtype come into play in this?

(for the record, Merry/Serious is one of the ones that never made sense to me. which is pretty much why i'm bothering with it now...and will likely be a wasted effort..heheh)

[anndelise]

dee, perhaps you are misunderstanding what I am doing. The info came from the link. I'm just trying to interpret the translation. So when the link says "Merry is able to establish/determine emotional distance..." it's not ME saying it, and thus not for ME to debate the truthfullness of those associations.

Merry is able to establish/determine emotional distance between themselves and others, and/or between others.

--- i wouldn't say there is an emotional distance. i think emotions are like kinetic energy, it moves, either from one object to another, or burns within until it distills into the real distance i.e. say positive emotions would distill into close relationship distance.

*I* didn't initiate the phrase "emotional distance", the link did. And for what it's worth, Fe is the function known for paying attention to the signals people send out...noticing these signals would allow the Fe person to manipulate the interaction and/or adapt themselves to the person's signals.

Merry is able to adapt and regulate that distance, bringing it closer or moving it apart. As such," getting to know somebody" is not treated as a special activity in and of itself.

------i think merry are able to exert it in real time and perhaps the results of negative emotional transfer could create negative relationships.

Serious prefers to let another person, situation, or other moderate the emotional distance so that closer dialogue/contact can begin. As in, letting an outside entity take care of keeping the distance or allowing further closeness instead of having to take care of that themselves. Formality and rituals would be one example of such a moderating entity. Due to the desire or need for the external moderator, "getting to know somebody" is treated as a special activity in and of itself.

-----serious, e.g. enfp and esfp easily manipulate relationships i.e. distance themselves.

Perhaps you've missed the many posts of enfp, infj, and entj complaining of how they feel as if they are constantly being misunderstood when they try to get to know someone...as if their innocent attempt is being misconstrued as them being interested in something .....more intimate....than intended.
And then the issues of how when they attempt to put more distance between themselves and the other person, it comes out more "violent" or "manipulative" than intended as well.

i think it's better to look at it like: Fe is in verbal blocks (ego and super id) and so communication here is easiy, acceptable, encouraged and enjoyable.

[anndelise]

Adding in Part 3 of the Merry vs Serious:

Serious acknowledges that there can be personal preferences and motives, but assumes that there are "objectively known facts", regularities, laws in general, and common experiences. "Facts" are determined as "true" or "false". Actions and views are determined as "correct" , "incorrect", or "best". (Any situation has a "correct", "incorrect", or "best" action/view.) Optimality is derived in terms of correctness and/or best way of doing something; the most effective way. (Note from ann: this says nothing about determining the criteria of "effectiveness", nor of "actual correctness".) In disagreements, Serious first "verify" the concepts used; checking whether the other person knows the concepts and terms "correctly".

Merry assumes that people have differing criteria and differing views. "Facts" are considered as viewpoints/opinions. Any situation there are many ways one can act, approach, or view the situation. Optimality is derived from within a framework of the concept, Merry uses a subjective approach (more optimal compared to what? approach). In disagreements, Merry attempts to contrast other people's views to their own, and to explain their position.

A simple summary of this portion may be:
Merry focuses on ways to approach an activity.
Serious focuses on the "best" way to accomplish the activity.


Note by ann: The above seems to take an extreme view of Ti vs Te. Here it may be worth keeping in mind that a T ego is said to be strong in both Ti/Te, while an F ego is said to be weak in both Ti/Te. The dual strength may cause confusion amongst Ts, and the dual weakness may cause confusion amongst Fs.
Also, I don't believe that this portion of the dichotomy fits well. An example, one of the issues that enfps (serious) have with istjs (merry) is how the istj demands that the enfp "go by the book" because "the book will tell you the correct way", while the enfp chafes at such confines (despite the enfp often wanting to do the action right…there's just something about being told to do it only a specific way)

***

Part 4 & 5 (and the end finally):

Serious are not inclined to verify terminology and concepts. Serious assumes that terms and concepts have only one unique interpretation (the "correct" or "accurate" one). Serious may often not notice that the other person may be interpreting them differently within the framework of other concepts. Serious assume that they know a term, meaning, or thing correctly... how it "really is".

When discussing actions and joint activities, Serious will often give mass of examples instead of explanations (all "correct" or "incorrect" actions are based on examples). Serious will use phrases like: "It refers to this", "You say it's like that while in reality it's like this."


Merry accept that different people have different meanings/understandings of the same concepts, terminology, etc. Merry perceives the terminology (and actions) as an extenuation of personal opinions, occupied positions, personal intention, etc. Merry understands the differences in terminologies, and so during discussions may seek towards coming to an agreement over the terms to be used for a concept...for the purposes of clearer discussion at the moment. Merry may even attempt to contrast terminologies and meanings "Well you say it is like that, but I disagree."

When discussing actions and joint activities Merry will often give explanations instead of mass of examples. Merry will use phrases such as: "According to my understanding", "personal criteria", "I have concluded", "they insisted", and so on.

[aestrivex]

reinin was a fraud

[XoX]

reinin was a fraud

Well his theory is _apparently_ mathematically sound. Meaning that you can describe a type using either the four original dichotomies or the dichotomies he suggested. However defining what each dichotomy actually means is the problem. It is the same problem you have with defining functions. You can describe a type via functions and model A but how to describe each individual function? There is no clear consensus on that. Their abstraction level is so high that perhaps it is impossible to explicitly describe them without leaving something essential out.

So a minimalist approach might be the best. The most important thing is to describe the functions so that they do not overlap with each other (it is more important than to leave something relevant out of the functional description). Same thing with Reinin dichotomies. You should describe them in a minimalist way which does make each dichotomy orthogonal to each other. This is the only way for them to be useful. The dichotomy approach seems in no way worse than the functional approach. The only thing which currently makes the dichotomy approach worse is the fact that the functional descriptions are better developed and less conflicting which each other.

Functions are a valid way to describe a type but are hard to express explicitly. Dichotomies are a valid way to describe a type but are perhaps even harder to express explicitly.

I would like to see a typing approach which utilizes both models and sort of cross-verifies the answers against different models of the same thing. And simple is beautiful here. To describe only the very essence of each element and leave out everything controversial and overlapping.

[aestrivex]

well, the problem with your comparison of the reinin vs. functions approach is that functions (at least by all appearances) are observable phenomena. there will always be people who defy analysis one way or another, but in general it's very possible to go and say "oh, that person looks like an Fe person because he's so confident about expressing his emotions" or the like.


with reinin one lacks a clear picture of exactly what these things mean. you're not going to look at someone, for the most part, and say, "the way that person acts demonstrates tactics > strategy," largely because the minutiae of every tactics/strategy description ever written reflect absurd little tendencies that really have nothing to do with the model of socionics concerned with functional alignment.



the idea that his theory is "mathematically sound" simply because you can describe the types using a variety of dichotomies is rather baffling to me.

[XoX]

well, the problem with your comparison of the reinin vs. functions approach is that functions (at least by all appearances) are observable phenomena. there will always be people who defy analysis one way or another, but in general it's very possible to go and say "oh, that person looks like an Fe person because he's so confident about expressing his emotions" or the like.


with reinin one lacks a clear picture of exactly what these things mean. you're not going to look at someone, for the most part, and say, "the way that person acts demonstrates tactics > strategy," largely because the minutiae of every tactics/strategy description ever written reflect absurd little tendencies that really have nothing to do with the model of socionics concerned with functional alignment.

I disagree with the claim that the dichotomies are inherently harder to describe or more abstract. I think the problem is that way less effort has been made to understand them and that is why functional descriptions are better developed. In the end it might be easier to describe the difference between e.g. strategy and tactics or aristocracy and democary than it is to describe difference between Te and Ti or Ne and Ni and so on.

[aestrivex]

i tend to disagree. at any rate i'm still waiting for some kind of coherent explanation of what these dichotomies mean before i can take them seriously (perhaps excepting static/dynamic which documents an extremely basic difference in model A)

[XoX]

i tend to disagree. at any rate i'm still waiting for some kind of coherent explanation of what these dichotomies mean before i can take them seriously (perhaps excepting static/dynamic which documents an extremely basic difference in model A)

I respect your disagreement as I'm working with a hunch here I just wish to see more activity in people trying to understand the dichotomies and how useful they could be in the end.

[Ezra]

How do these pairs of dichotomies manifest (value-wise, behavior-wise): careless & strategic

The values held by SEIs, EIEs, LIEs and SLIs and how they behave give you a pretty good idea of this pair.

careless & tactical

The same applies to ILEs, LSIs, ESIs, and IEEs.

farsighted & strategic

And again to SLEs, SEEs and EIIs.

farsighted & tactical?

And lastly, the same again to ESEs and ILIs.

[FDG]

I disagree with the claim that the dichotomies are inherently harder to describe or more abstract. I think the problem is that way less effort has been made to understand them and that is why functional descriptions are better developed. In the end it might be easier to describe the difference between e.g. strategy and tactics or aristocracy and democary than it is to describe difference between Te and Ti or Ne and Ni and so on.

i think it's just you know the strategy from it's description say, and you know the examples of quotes people say with it, and there is a specific behavioral/speech patterns that you can trace from yourself based on standards mentioned in each dichotomy, this, is absent in Ti/Te etc., unless you have a pretty damn good definition of Te 5th say generic for each type so that you can say yeah, sure i have Te 5th!, or sure i have Te super ego, or mental or vital or whatever, again you need pretty damn good definitions and as well as that you got a too big of a choice to make with Te 5th say, cos there is also Te 6th, etc. Reinin dichotomies are much better in that.

also, Reinin dichotomies are based on particular configurations of the model A so it's just a matter of time deciphering it into how these dichotomies actually manifest themselves in reality, untangled from any other ones. THIS is the only problem. but with time it will be solved for sure, unless model A undergoes changes.

(warning: arrogance following) given that at college i meet hunders of acquaintances in, say, a week, i actually have in my mind a very high number of real-life examples of "sentencies" and "behaviours" that show the dichotomies but i am not sure how i can translate what's in my mind to things that can be easily understood :S

[Expat]

i tend to disagree. at any rate i'm still waiting for some kind of coherent explanation of what these dichotomies mean before i can take them seriously (perhaps excepting static/dynamic which documents an extremely basic difference in model A)

What did you think of the Aristocracy/Democracy explanation in the Wiki?

[aestrivex]

i tend to disagree. at any rate i'm still waiting for some kind of coherent explanation of what these dichotomies mean before i can take them seriously (perhaps excepting static/dynamic which documents an extremely basic difference in model A)

What did you think of the Aristocracy/Democracy explanation in the Wiki?

i never looked at it before. however, i think its a very good possible functional explanation of a dichotomy the apparent effects of which are very dubious. the way that democracy and aristocracy is extensively treated in that explanation (ie, dealing with groups vs individuals) is not something i have really observed at all as being related to type, with the possible exception of some nutcase beta types making ridiculous social generalizations.

it is of course possible that the effects are there and i'm simply not seeing them, as i have less firsthand interaction (especially in social situations) with other people than 99.9% of the rest of the world. however, i can't buy them atm.

[aestrivex]

i tend to disagree. at any rate i'm still waiting for some kind of coherent explanation of what these dichotomies mean before i can take them seriously (perhaps excepting static/dynamic which documents an extremely basic difference in model A)

i think we don't have to wait, lets organize an experiment as FDG proposed and get the dichotomies pinned down earlier!!

thank you. i'm now certain you're an alpha SF type.

[FDG]

i tend to disagree. at any rate i'm still waiting for some kind of coherent explanation of what these dichotomies mean before i can take them seriously (perhaps excepting static/dynamic which documents an extremely basic difference in model A)

i think we don't have to wait, lets organize an experiment as FDG proposed and get the dichotomies pinned down earlier!!

thank you. i'm now certain you're an alpha SF type.

is SF the acronym for sex and fucking?

[aestrivex]

i tend to disagree. at any rate i'm still waiting for some kind of coherent explanation of what these dichotomies mean before i can take them seriously (perhaps excepting static/dynamic which documents an extremely basic difference in model A)

i think we don't have to wait, lets organize an experiment as FDG proposed and get the dichotomies pinned down earlier!!

thank you. i'm now certain you're an alpha SF type.

is SF the acronym for sex and fucking?

actually it stands for sadistic fetishism

[Logos]

i tend to disagree. at any rate i'm still waiting for some kind of coherent explanation of what these dichotomies mean before i can take them seriously (perhaps excepting static/dynamic which documents an extremely basic difference in model A)

What did you think of the Aristocracy/Democracy explanation in the Wiki?

It deals primarily with Gamma Democracy and Beta Aristocracy, and seemingly lacks in the manifestations and logical functional explanations for Delta Aristocracy and Alpha Democracy.

[aestrivex]

let's drop the offtop though, guys, please. this is such an important topic.

i really don't know how to say this any clearer: reinin dichotomies are not god's fundamental creation. trying to deal with them at all is a waste of time.

[FDG]

let's drop the offtop though, guys, please. this is such an important topic.

i really don't know how to say this any clearer: reinin dichotomies are not god's fundamental creation. trying to deal with them at all is a waste of time.

BOOO TAKE YOUR NEGATIVISM BACK HOME

[aestrivex]

let's drop the offtop though, guys, please. this is such an important topic.

i really don't know how to say this any clearer: reinin dichotomies are not god's fundamental creation. trying to deal with them at all is a waste of time.

BOOO TAKE YOUR NEGATIVISM BACK HOME

I AM HOME BITCH. BATTERIES NOT INCLUDED.

[FDG]

let's drop the offtop though, guys, please. this is such an important topic.

i really don't know how to say this any clearer: reinin dichotomies are not god's fundamental creation. trying to deal with them at all is a waste of time.

BOOO TAKE YOUR NEGATIVISM BACK HOME

I AM HOME BITCH. BATTERIES NOT INCLUDED.

SO SHOVE IT UP YOUR ASS MMMKAY?????

[aestrivex]

I ALREADY TOLD YOU: BATTERIES NOT INCLUDED

[XoX]

i tend to disagree. at any rate i'm still waiting for some kind of coherent explanation of what these dichotomies mean before i can take them seriously (perhaps excepting static/dynamic which documents an extremely basic difference in model A)

i think we don't have to wait, lets organize an experiment as FDG proposed and get the dichotomies pinned down earlier!!

thank you. i'm now certain you're an alpha SF type.

Just a minute ago you were preaching about ridiculous generalizations that Beta types make