Let's prove Reinin traits are wrong

[machintruc]

I had an idea to prove the unreliability of Reinin's derivative dichotomies.

I invite you to post videos of types with a contradictory Reinin trait, such as Result EIE's or Negativist LSI's. Or even Asking LIE's or such.

[Expat]

Good. You go first.

[aestrivex]

by my limited understanding of reinin, i'm carefree rather than farsighted.


there. point proven. reinin is dead. now go away.

[machintruc]

OK, explain me how an LII may refer more to "Process" than "Result", or an SLE more to "Asking" than "Declaring".

Videos aren't really needed. Try to explain to me how was Reinin wrong. I DO NOT really care how you explain it.

[Ezra]

UDP is a Declaring LSE.

[Jonathan]

I had an idea to prove the unreliability of Reinin's derivative dichotomies.

I invite you to post videos of types with a contradictory Reinin trait, such as Result EIE's or Negativist LSI's. Or even Asking LIE's or such.

Here's a variant for you: how many of your posts actually ask things? Or even imply a question?

Does anyone have any evidence that machintruc fits the description of an asker?

Or Tcaud, for that matter...or anyone who is usually considered on this forum to be LII?

Wouldn't most of the rest have to be "declaring LIIs" if we looked at the presumed behaviors that are supposed to be associated with this dichotomy?

And wouldn't that mean that many of the typical typings for forum members are backwards?

[tcaudilllg]

Example of a Reinin non-compliant LII (I think):

Our group has now recognized 2 Institutional Vandals, and this is a message to tell you that you are the second identified, and all actions by this user are being databased for trend identification. It is unfortunate you would choose to sideline such an important issue, but there are other ways this issue will be brought back to the main forum. It will amuse us to observe what we call an IV Admin use Admin tools to bury embarassing topics. This just proves our point, and the world will soon discover that Wikipedia, as important as it is, can no longer function as it was intended, or as it should, because of the shortsighted and illogical actions of a few entrenched users with unique controls. Such is life. Kreepy krawly 20:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not buried. it's been moved so it doesn't dominate the page, but the conversation just exists in the subpage. It's not vandalism, and I'm not a vandal. Also, I'm not an admin -- I have no more power than you do. Your accusations are unfounded, please calm down and stay WP:CIVIL. Thanks! Gscshoyru 20:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

You could not be privy to the future policies of Wikipedia as described in the "X" manual. The recent actions of this user are not appreciated and are becoming distracting. Please cease interaction. NEVER is it the place of another user to accuse Kreepy krawly of a need to calm down, as no such calming down is necessary or will occur. It is suggested that is user offer constructive contributions to the Process rather than focus energy on the benevolent, if upsetting, actions of Kreepy krawly. It's not worth it. Think about it. Think. And we are not obliged to discuss and divulge explanations to identified IV's. We thank our esteemed colleagues in advance for their careful understanding and useful future contributions. Kreepy krawly 20:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Why are you talking about yourself in the third person? And "X" manual? I have no clue what you're talking about, and if you continue to be uncivil and make unconstructive edits, I will continue to warn you and revert them, ok? Please stop. Gscshoyru 20:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

This user will not become privy to the meaning of "X" manual, as that indication is for the non-Wikipedians, or "X's," who are following the developments of acrimony related to the original string: Trivia is what Wikipedia does best; Wikipedia has become bigger than itself. Please stay away from the Kreepy krawly talk page. This needs to be the end of this. Kreepy krawly 21:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

-- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 12:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Inconceivable. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

You do not tell us what are constructive contributions, as constructive contributions are impossible until the problems surrounding the treatment of trivia are fixed. So any dialougue about trivia is constructive. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE WORDS I'M USING HERE ? LET ME REFER TO MY DICTIONARY AND THESARUS SO I CAN COMMUNICATE EFFECTIVELY: THE TRIVIA POLICY IS WRONG AND MUST BE FIXED. UNTIL THAT HAPPENS, I WILL BE DISCUSSING TRIVIA, AND ONLY DISCUSSING TRIVIA. ONCE I AM SATISFIED, I MAY, IF I SO CHOOSE, AND IN THE HOUR OF MY CHOOSING, ADD CONTENT.Bold text I'M NOT A MERE EDITOR, I DON'T JUST GO TO EXISTING ARTICLES AND EDIT. I ADD CONTENT, BUT THAT WON'T HAPPEN UNLESS CERTAIN ENTITIES LEARN TO PLAY NICE IN THEIR OWN SANDBOX ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE PLAYGROUND.

This block means nothing. There are thousands of others who can take my place. How unfortunate that a CHOICE would be made that would be so detrimental to Wikipedia. But we all have choices, don't we ? In the real world, and in cyberspace. CHOICES. CHOICES. CHOICES. My mother taught me to MAKE GOOD CHOICES. What lessons has this community, under the guise of certain entities, brought to Wikipedia ? What demonstrations has it made recently.

Reasons ? Oh my esteemed colleague, reason has already been attempted. I spent hours composing messages with reasons. I saw nothing to indicate a use of reason in response, only irrational diatribes. There are behind-the-scenes collusions occurring here that are beyond recourse. Such a sad way to conduct business. Now Wikipedia has proven to the world that it is defunct. It's been swell. Good luck with the mess. Remember, it was YOUR CHOICE. Signed, your friend forever, with the backing of thousands, Kreepy krawly. Hugs and kisses. Kreepy krawly 13:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Seems my esteemed colleage has a grudge to settle, as there are no actual grounds for this block, and not one shred of evidence of disruption has been offered. But I am guilty of stubbornness (let's refer to the actual policy, copied for our edification below

Stubbornness Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them about an editing issue, and repeatedly make changes opposed by everyone else. This is regrettable—you may wish to see our dispute resolution pages to get help. Repeated deletion or addition of material may violate the three-revert rule, but this is not "vandalism" and should not be dealt with as such.

SO IF YOU ARE SO CONFIDENT IN MY ABUSE OF WIKIPEDIA, DETAIL, I SAID DETAIL, I CAN'T SAY THIS LOUD ENOUGH, *********I******** **********SAID******** *********DETAIL********* YOUR EVIDENCE OF ABUSE. I AWAIT THE ANSWER FROM MY ESTEEMED COLLEAGUE, AS I'M SURE THIS ENTITY DESIRES TO BE ON THE SIDE OF REASON AND JUSTICE. AS THIS ENTITY IS AN ADMINISTRATOR, WE CAN ONLY HOPE THIS IS THE CASE, BUT MY HOPES ARE NOT HIGH. PROVE TO US THAT LEGITIMATE, RATIONAL DISCUSSION IS POSSIBLE. Kreepy krawly 13:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[liveandletlive]

i see IEE as more of an asker than a declarer.

[Rick]

i see IEE as more of an ansker than a declarer.

What do you mean by that?

[Joy]

I had an idea to prove the unreliability of Reinin's derivative dichotomies.

I invite you to post videos of types with a contradictory Reinin trait, such as Result EIE's or Negativist LSI's. Or even Asking LIE's or such.

There's no way you could tell that about somebody just by watching a video of them.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[liveandletlive]

i see IEE as more of an ansker than a declarer.

What do you mean by that?

sry, i meant asker. umm, IME i've always seen them asking a lot of questions and engaging others in dialogue.

[Jonathan]

i see IEE as more of an ansker than a declarer.

What do you mean by that?

sry, i meant asker. umm, IME i've always seen them asking a lot of questions and engaging others in dialogue.

I think Rick's intention was to demonstrate the behavior of asking a question...kind of like my post further up.

[liveandletlive]

i see IEE as more of an ansker than a declarer.

What do you mean by that?

sry, i meant asker. umm, IME i've always seen them asking a lot of questions and engaging others in dialogue.

I think Rick's intention was to demonstrate the behavior of asking a question...kind of like my post further up.

goshdarn S!

[Gilly]

goshdarn paint chips!

[machintruc]

i see IEE as more of an ansker than a declarer.

What do you mean by that?

sry, i meant asker. umm, IME i've always seen them asking a lot of questions and engaging others in dialogue.

Well SEE's are anskers.

[tcaudilllg]

Well I researched Rienin via Augusta's original essay, and from what I can tell that diatribe I reproduced earlier was not totally Rienin reversed; only the signs were. The Rienin dichotomies are more a consequence of duality and of the quadras than of the signs. As for Rienin in general, I can see where someone might call them mislabled in some instances. But all IEEs are askers... I know this from experience. (They'll "ask" an INTj completely bonkers.)

[Rick]

Well I researched Rienin via Augusta's original essay, and from what I can tell that diatribe I reproduced earlier was not totally Rienin reversed; only the signs were. The Rienin dichotomies are more a consequence of duality and of the quadras than of the signs. As for Rienin in general, I can see where someone might call them mislabled in some instances. But all IEEs are askers... I know this from experience. (They'll "ask" an INTj completely bonkers.)

In general when a supervisory pair forms (even if temporary), the supervisee tends to become an 'asker' to find out useful information without exposing himself to criticism.

[Rick]

goshdarn S!

Don't worry... it was a lame joke

[Creepy-pokeball]

The only 2ndary dichotomy that I found useful was static/dynamic. I find a lot of them to be rather pointless, and not worth the effort in even thinking about.

[Jimbean]

Aren't there speech pattern differences with all of the Renin dichotomies, just like with the static/dynamic?

[Creepy-pokeball]

Aren't there speech pattern differences with all of the Renin dichotomies, just like with the static/dynamic?

Is this towards me? If so, maybe. Im not denying any plausibility. I'm just saying that they're mentally distracting. It's like putting too much pepper onto a good steak!!!

[tcaudilllg]

That I can tell, Augusta herself only studied like, five of the dichotomies. (or at least, that's all she wrote about in her initial thesis.) ...From what I can discern, they assume the pursuit of duality to be a very primal motives -- in fact, a kind of relativity theory for information (Augusta was a big fan of Einstein, this much we know) -- on which basis all the rest of socionics is built. The way she frames it, human relationships are exclusively based on the degree to which someone is or is not dual to us per function. Quadras come into also, and that's where it gets VERY confusing; a literal sea of Fi.

[krieger]

That I can tell, Augusta herself only studied like, five of the dichotomies.

Any chance those were the 'small cycle dichotomies' + Static/Dynamic? Postivism/Negativism, Process/Result, Asker/Declarer, Aristocrat/Democrat and Static/Dynamic? Those are the ones that I assign credibility to.

The way she frames it, human relationships are exclusively based on the degree to which someone is or is not dual to us per function.

Also perfectly in line with my conclusions. Everything we do with our environment, we do to make up for the absence of duality. Even through interfacing with our non-duals we influence them to be as much like our duals as we can get them to be.

"Simulated duality" is what I call it.

I also believe that it is impossible for any of us to "think a thought" without succesfully moulding our environment to have it emulate our duals.

Quadras come into also, and that's where it gets VERY confusing; a literal sea of Fi.

What makes you involve Fi into all this?