Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Towards a new understanding of reasonable/resolute

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    2 Post(s)
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Towards a new understanding of reasonable/resolute

    Let me start with what is apparently the standard view on how reasonable/resolute (i.e. Alpha-Delta vs. Gamma-Beta) manifests.

    The view that I have seen put forth (from some post way back by Rmcnew that I think was from a Russian something-or-other) is that "reasonable" manifests itself in the exact way that "Ip temperament" is also described, and that "this attitude is strengthened by introversion," meaning that basically ISps and INjs are the people who exhibit Ip temperament.

    1.Natural state is relaxed.
    2.Work best when they can relax beforehand, and are mobilized only for the duration necessary.
    3.Have an easy time going from 'mobilized' to 'relaxed', but not from 'relaxed' to 'mobilized'. Thus, they may need external stimuli to become mobilized.
    4.Tend to divide up matters into smaller stages during which they are mobilized, relaxing between each stage.
    "Resolute" types, according to that view, are essentially the opposite, sort of what one thinks of as type A personalities....very decisive, easily mobilized, and need some sort of external stimulus such as going to movie or having a drink to even begin to relax. These types supposedly finish what they start in one go (as hitta also likes to points out .) The article also said that "This attitude is strengthened by extroversion," meaning that it's mainly referring to ESp and ENj.

    Now, the big problem I see with this description is that when any of this is brought up, the IEIs and ILIs tend to get annoyed, talking about how they don't identify with the resolute definition at all. And then people point out that they know an LSE who seems more like the resolute description than the reasonable one.....which actually makes sense from the article, because by saying that reasonable is strengthened by introversion and resolute by extroversion, it's leaving the window open to the idea that maybe these descriptions don't really apply to INps and ESjs much at all.

    ...which suggests that it's not really an accurate description of the dichotomy, since an accurate description should apply equally well to all types in each side of the dichotomy. In addition to that, it gives very little indication of what the output of resolutes and reasonables is like, or really of anything we could usefully say about them except that reasonables are Ip-like, which is questionable at best.

    ...which leads me to the suggestion that maybe we should reconsider what the common traits are between Gammas and Betas, and between Alphas and Deltas.

    And here is my proposal. Let's think first about irrational functions as relating to experience and the perception of the space around you through which you move. Resolute types would tend to create a life narrative where the static space one moves through is S and the dynamic motion is N, meaning that it's kind of like a story where you move between rather fleshed-out scenes and there is a sort of imaginative consideration of "what comes next" Reasonable types, on the other hand, would tend to create a life narrative where the static space one moves through is an abstract one concerning possibilities, and the dynamic motion is S, meaning that it's kind of like a dance where one has a certain sense of focus regarding one's physical state, and one moves from one possibility to another.

    Other related ideas are that resolute types value long-term approaches (save for another day) whereas reasonable types are more short-term-oriented (live for today). At a less abstract level, I think this is possibly saying a similar thing, although if taken the wrong way it could also conflict with the idea of, say, IEIs focused more on indulging their imagination for today rather than in dealing with life's chores and investments for tomorrow. But I think here the resolution is that ILIs and IEIs think about a long-term flow and do things to affect things later on, even though their impractical focus tends to make them seem a bit oblivious to external events that may affect the future.

    I think these ideas offer a much better understanding of this dichotomy than the one I read about, which I tend to think is inaccurate for INps and ESjs (if it's even accurate at all).

    Other opinions?
    Last edited by Jonathan; 01-22-2008 at 03:57 AM.

  2. #2
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    United Kingdom
    28 Post(s)
    0 Thread(s)


    I think that the way to understand that dichotomy is simply to look at what makes it exist in the first place, which is Se-Ni as opposed to Si-Ne in the quadra. Which is precisely how Augusta and Reinin looked at it.

    So rather than look at it as some sort of specific sets of traits that so different types should have in common - which is what dichotomy descriptions tend to convey - it's best to look at what Se-Ni vs Si-Ne actually means, and not expecting, say, EJs to behave like IPs or the like.

    Some of your points already do that. Others are unnecessarily complicated, in my opinion.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts