Reinin dichotomies: How is preference for strategy/tactics explained functionally?

[Ezra]

I know on the wiki it says:

"The tactical IM types have intuition either in functions 1 and 7, or in functions 4 and 6 - and sensing either in functions 2 and 8, or in functions 3 and 5. They have inert intuition and contact sensing.

The strategic IM types have sensing either in functions 1 and 7, or in functions 4 and 6 - and intuition either in functions 2 and 8, or in functions 3 and 5. They have inert sensing and contact intuition."

But that isn't clear enough for me to understand what makes someone strategic or tactical (from a Reininist point of view). For example, if being strategic was always related to one's having an intuitive ego, that would make sense to me (because of the stigma surrounding intuition being related to focusing on 'the bigger picture'). But it's not. Apparently if you're an ILE, you're tactical, not strategic. In fact, you can even have an intuitive role function and still be strategic.

So what is the explanation for one's being strategic or tactical? What is it related to?

[Expat]

It has to do with the "contact" and "inert" functional concepts, and it is somewhat counter-intuitive in model A.

It's the same problem with emotion- and construct-creating. LIEs and LSEs are emotion-creating, like IEIs and SEIs, just like EIEs and ESEs are construct-creating, just like ILIs and SLIs.

According to this view, it has less to do with which functions are in your ego as such, but which you supposedly use to "contact" others, or the external environment.

If you look at Reinin and Augusta's original description, it doesn't go much deeper than this either. Perhaps some of those who really buy Reinin dichotomies in their entirety would care to explain.

[Minde]

They're always perceiving

Strategy is 'intuitive rational' = 'creative intuition' and 'sensoric irrational' = 'accepting sensorics'.

[...]

Strategic function:
It focuses on the bottom line, the thing you want. By it's action it separates the worthy from the unworthy, talented from untalented, the succesful from the unsuccesful. Without a goal, it's useless. It's point is to establish direction. By it's action it turns the 'construct-creating' into the 'emotion-creating'. By this action it turns the focus from the old, the known, into the new, the surprising and starts a new cycle. This is the function that casts off the creations that anchor you and sends you to the unknown. 'Strategic' functions require the support of 'Tactical' functions. A goal will not be reached unless someone does the actual work to get there.


Tactics is 'rational sensorics' = 'creative sensorics' and 'irrational intuition' = 'accepting intuition'.

Tactical function:
It focuses on what it's doing. Methods are chosen according to personal interest, skill and relevance to task. The outcome is whatever is possible under circumstances and should be accepted as such. Can possess an unattached, mercenary or professional worker attitude. Importance given on talent and skill. By its action it turns the 'emotion-creating' into the 'construct-creating'. By this action it finds a personal sense of accomplishment, reaches a sense of finding it's place in the world which starts the conservative instinct.

When asked about what the lines with the "=" mean, he said:

Well, in a sense rational and creative are defining of the same property in connection with intuition. All creative intuition is rational intuition and vice versa. So I thought = would be ok. And yes, when strategy is irrational it's accepting and sensoric.

And, yes, Expat is right in that tactics v. strategy is on the same level as emotion-creating v. creation-creating.

[Expat]

Something to keep in mind.

Reinin dichotomies did NOT stem from model A. Rather, he proposed the dichotomies, and then he and Augusta tried to make sense of them as per their observations and model A.

Reinin formed the dichotomies from the original Jungian ones, even using MBTT-like notation: E/I, S/N, F/T, J/P

So tactical vs strategic is simply

NJ + SP (Strategic) vs NP + SJ (tactical).

That's what makes, say, LIEs be strategic and ILEs, tactical.

However, there's no "magic" to say that that's what the above dichotomies meant. That's what Reinin and Augusta thought was more likely to split those types into two groups.

The thing with contact and inert functions in model A is more like a post-fact rationalization, if you ask me.

[Ezra]

If Reinin is at odds with Model A, then so am I. It's like being a Christian who didn't think Jesus ever existed. Doesn't work.

[Minde]

If Reinin is at odds with Model A, then so am I. It's like being a Christian who didn't think Jesus ever existed. Doesn't work.

You'd be against model A or Reinin?

[munenori2]

I haven't read the previous replies, so I'm probably repeating someone else or saying something completely moronic, but it seems to me to be an issue of sensing or intuition as they refer to one's producing/accepting functions (though with a caveat as to how they view the world).

Take strategic for example. Either they are creatively (read as producing) intuitive or in the other case view intuition as something the world expects of them (the role) as well as expecting a form of it (the dual seeking). I don't know if this is intended to delineate strong strategists (NJ, user of producing strong functions) versus relatively weaker strategists (SP, user of accepting, weaker functions), or as it would be on the tactical end, etc. Given their differing status as accepting or producing, I'm not quite sure what to make of it precisely, as well as perhaps me simply tossing red herrings into the discussion (which is very possible)!

[Minde]

I haven't read the previous replies, so I'm probably repeating someone else or saying something completely moronic, but it seems to me to be an issue of sensing or intuition as they refer to one's producing/accepting functions (though with a caveat as to how they view the world).

Take strategic for example. Either they are creatively (read as producing) intuitive or in the other case view intuition as something the world expects of them (the role) as well as expecting a form of it (the dual seeking). I don't know if this is intended to delineate strong strategists (NJ, user of producing strong functions) versus relatively weaker strategists (SP, user of accepting, weaker functions), or as it would be on the tactical end, etc. Given their differing status as accepting or producing, I'm not quite sure what to make of it precisely, as well as perhaps me simply tossing red herrings into the discussion (which is very possible)!

For not having read previous replies, that's not bad.

[Ezra]

You'd be against model A or Reinin?

Against Reinin. When it comes to socionics, Model A is to me what the Koran is to Muslims.

[krieger]

I find it useful to think of these labels not as standalone dichotomies, but as descriptions that can further familiarize us with the more conventional dichotomies.

Accepting Intuition and Creating Sensorics are both described as tactical.
Accepting Sensorics and Creating Intuition are both described as strategical.

However, they may well be described that way for strongly divergent reasons. I hold agnostic on wether these exist as a real property of the system or not.

Something else to notice: tactics has a description similar to sensorics, strategics one similar to intuition. Likewise, emotion-creating reads similar to feeling and construct-creating to thinking.

What I get from this, is the principle that an accepting function is one that allows for juxtapoxtion with it's opposite. Accepting thinking, for example, as emotion-creating, is a polite form of thinking. One that has no difficulty taking emotions in account.

[Ezra]

Accepting Intuition and Creating Sensorics are both described as tactical.
Accepting Sensorics and Creating Intuition are both described as strategical.

What, so in layman's terms, those who accept intuition want to create something more down-to-earth and here-and-now i.e. devise their tactics, and those who accept sensate things want to create something which goes further; a bigger picture; thus they devise a strategy. Correct? Even close?