Results 1 to 31 of 31

Thread: INTps, which Reinin dichotomies for you as an ILI?

  1. #1
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,375
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default INTps, which Reinin dichotomies for you as an ILI?

    Could you say which Reinin dichotomies give the right result for your type?

    The descriptions are below. The ones that are bold are the ones which should be your result.

    In my case this is what I noticed:

    Correct: Farsighted, Obstinate, Democratic, Negativist, Declaring
    To vague: Dynamic, Tactical, Decisive, Serious, Constructivist
    Contradicting: Process

    ------------------------------------------------------------------

    Carefree types

    Go by "wait and see" strategy, do not overplan ahead, and rely on their own ability to be successful in tactics. Have very sensitive senses and things like a dentist appointment are perceived with dread. They are always frank and direct, stating conclusions or making a point forcefully at the very start and then, if necessary, explaining their positioning. They have keen eye for detail and are better at noticing small things than larger counterparts.

    Farsighted types

    Try to always foresee how things might develop and try to take all the possible precautionary measures to prevent or, alternatively, channel things in the right direction. Very often make long introductions with speech before conveying the main point or bringing the person talked to to a point of agreement, etc. Can tolerate physical discomfort for significant amounts of time and can be oblivious to low threshholds of pain, sound, size of details, etc.


    Yielding types

    Protects resources: resources are taken for granted, whereas interests are adapted to them.
    Does not like discovering others wanting own resources, and if a goal is not very clearly attainable, they go for "smarter" options.
    Do not experience unnatural discomfort lending/borrowing money/material posessions, but prefer to keep ideas that they have to themselves, being a little bit more private.
    Do not like conflict, avoid direct confrontations, yield to others for a turn, act courteous, and give high priority to interests of others.
    Prefer smaller groups of people, do not like loud sounds, and are very attentive to details in people's attitudes and emotions.

    Obstinate types

    Protects interests : interests are taken for granted, whereas resources are adapted to them.
    Own goals views as depending on careful planning and luck, leaving things that cannot be done now to times when things look better, keep on going to their aims or stick to their views no matter what, are stubborn, and hate others planning their time for them with alien interests.
    Freely shares all of the information that they have seen, gathered or concluded, but are extremely protective when it comes to their personal possessions.
    When in proximity to others, judge by how others hold themselves physical superiority/status-wise, often have trouble giving way, like to be in large groups and tolerate loud sounds pretty well/may not hear small audial details as well though, require significant expression on your behalf in order to notice changes in your humor as well as how you feel about things and people.


    Statics

    More inclined to say how stages A, B and C are
    More inclined to talk of properties and structures of reality
    Perception of reality is more like 8 frames per second (Talanov)

    Dynamics

    More inclined to say how stage A leads to stage B, and how stage B leads to stage C
    More inclined to talk of movements and interactions of reality
    Perception of reality is more like 64 frames per second (Talanov)


    Aristocrats

    Construct informational pairs (sort of the +/- thing, when each element is sort of tainted with another) such as Te bw Si, Ti bw Se, Te bw Ne, Ti bw Ni, Fe bw Ni, Fi bw Ne, Fe bw Se, and Fi bw Si.
    Inclined to perceive and define themselves, and others, through groups they belong to; however, such groups are perceived and defined by the Aristocrats themselves, not necessarily accepting those groupings as defined by others or by social conventions.
    Their initial attitude to another person is influenced by their attitude to the group they see the person as belonging to.
    Tend to attribute common qualities to members of their circles of contacts, and define such circles by those same qualities.
    Inclined to use expressions that generalize group features.
    In collective hierarchical structures (as in work, organizations, etc) inclined to pay little attention to a person's official position in that structure.
    Example: in beta, feeling energized by identification with a group, as in a team within a company, sports team, and the like; and seeing others foremost through the prism of the other teams they belong to. In delta, the teams are usually more individual, like a group of friends. In addition, it's important to note that members of delta stress the unique individuality of each person, but they are still aristocrats by this dichotomy.
    Typical phrases: "someone like that", "that type of person", "the man on the street", "some sort of X"

    Democrats

    Construct informational pairs (sort of the +/- thing, when each element is sort of tainted with another) such as Te bw Ni, Ti bw Ne, Te bw Se, Ti bw Si, Fe bw Si, Fi bw Se, Fe bw Ne, and Fi bw Ni.
    Perceive and define themselves, and others, primarily through individual/personal qualities: interesting, pleasant, unpleasant, good-looking, etc, not in connection to any group they may belong to.
    Form their relationships/attitudes toward other persons based on the latter's own individual characteristics, not with base on their relationships to groups of any kind, nor on their relationships to representatives of such groups.
    Not inclined to perceive their acquaintances as representatives of a certain "circle of contacts" that supposedly possesses qualities inherent to people of that circle.
    Not inclined to use expressions that generalize group features.
    In collective hierarchical structures (as in work, organizations, etc), inclined to take much consideration of a person's official position in that structure.
    Example: an individual building up his circle of personal connections, within an organization, that totally bypassses or ignores the organization's formal structure, but not with that circle being perceived as any kind of group or unit by any of the persons involved.


    Tactical types

    Focus on methods, and manipulate them, with goals unsettled.
    Goals are defined by, and modified to fit methods.
    Prefers to expand options. Doesn't like to have too few of them.

    Strategic types

    Focus on goals, and manipulate them, with methods unsettled.
    Methods are defined by, and modified to fit goals.
    Prefers to defend goals. Doesn't like to be forced to deviate from them.


    Constructivists

    Constructivists try to get into the right mindset for an activity and it takes time for them to get from one mindset to another. When they are at home, they are mentally prepared for anything that could happen at home and when they are at work, they switch over to work-mentality. They can get overwhelmed by emotions because once they get into an emotional state, they stay in that emotional state for a long time. Constructivists avoid emotional contact with others and they don't think it's necessary to adjust to the conversation emotionally. They use automatic polite responses and customs, like starting with "how are you?" or offering their guests coffee or tea. Practical conversation (talking "business") is easier for them. They like to repeat emotional states - rereading books, watching movies that they have already seen and revisiting places they liked. They avoid movies, situations and people who give them a negative mindset, because they have a difficult time getting rid of that mindset. Constructivists use emotional anchors (carefully chosen music, books, movies) to keep or strengthen their internal emotional state.

    Emotivists

    Emotivists try to enter the emotional atmosphere of the conversation and they try to keep the emotion in the conversation positive. They can talk about various things they have no interest in or do not believe in simply for the sake of maintaining a "positive spirit". Talking business is more difficult and the conversation topic can wander off into emotional exchange. They try to get new experiences and new emotions, which is why they travel to new places and rarely watch movies they have already seen. In emotivists calls for action/requests are not critically estimated and because of it they can get overwhelmed by them. After getting into a theme they stay in that mode of operation for a prolonged period of time and have difficulty switching, "disconnecting" (and because of it try to avoid unpleasant requests).


    Positivists

    More inclined to optimize already functional systems of things and processes.
    "This glass is half-full", "We have already collected $438,000 for that project"
    Usually more complimenting than reprimanding.
    Socially and intellectually more trusting.
    Explains what things are (irrationals) or should be (rationals).

    Negativists

    More inclined to solve problems in systems of things and processes.
    "This glass is half-empty", "We need $62,000 for that project"
    Usually more reprimanding than complimenting.
    Socially and intellectually more mistrusting.
    Explains what things are not (irrationals) or should not be (rationals).


    Judicious

    Natural state is relaxed
    On work, usually prefers satisfying working conditions to salary and other rewards

    Decisive

    Natural state is mobilised
    On work, usually prefers salary and other rewards to satisfying working conditions


    Merry

    types are all Alpha and Beta types, namely, LII, ESE, SEI, ILE, LSI, EIE, IEI, SLE.

    Serious

    types are all Gamma and Delta types, namely, ESI, LIE, ILI, SEE, EII, LSE, SLI, IEE.


    Process

    Prefer to finish the entire process till the end before doing something else.
    Do things sequentially, from the beginning to the end.
    Immersed to a process and tends to single-tasking.
    Focus between the beginning and the end of processes.
    More inclined to read texts on books or computer from beginning to the end.
    Socially more inclined to large groups.

    Result

    Use words such as "start", "end", "result" very quite often, and can have many things running in parallel and managing them quite ok.
    Do things randomly, seemingly doing them from the end to the beginning.
    Detached from processes and tends to multitasking.
    Focus on the beginning and the end of processes.
    More inclined to read texts on books or computer randomly, maybe reading random paragraphs or chapters.
    Socially more inclined to small groups or intimate conversations.


    Askers

    Tendency to dialogue.
    Much of what an asker says seems more question-like, even statements.
    Always, as the other person talks, affirm the receipt of information with yeah, mhm, etc.
    Can talk to an audience as a whole very well.
    Starts talking at times expecting someone to get interested and start paying attention.
    Has a tendency to interrupt and feels comfortable pausing half way on the speech and with "questions allowed all the time" way, returning to what was said if necessary later.
    Quite often asks a non-rhetorical question and answers it himself.
    Often just asks questions to fill in time, without serious need to actually find the information asked.

    Declarers

    Tendency to monologue.
    Much of what an declarer says seems more statement-like, even questions.
    Listens attentively and silently to others' speeches to return a long speech.
    Finds it easier to talk to one person at a time.
    Before starting to talk, first ascertains that attention is grabbed.
    Is very patient with others' speeches in terms of letting finish.
    Prefers to finish the speech before letting others talk, likes closure and that their point was conveyed.
    Questions are often either rhetorical or only strictly motivated by serious need for certain information.

  2. #2
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,375
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Thanks Aixelsyd

    I'm keeping scores and post them when more people have participated.

  3. #3
    Bow to the Ninchucks Microknight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    90
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I did this back in March, not too long after I discovered socionics. They helped confirm that I was ILI. I went through, chose the ones that were true for me, recorded my answers, and then for each dichotomy I assigned points to each of the types that scored that particular answer. For every dichotomy, I had to pick one of the two, no undecided. I wasn’t expecting there to be a clear answer, but I was surprised when all 11 of my answers lined up exactly with ILI.

    The most difficult for me to answer were Judicious/Decisive and Serious/Merry, mostly because they didn’t have much of an explanation. I was really torn on Judicious/Decisive, because I have quit jobs in the past because I disliked working conditions. But then I started to think that if the job offered significantly more money, I probably would have stayed. Double the pay and no doubt about it. I also thought that if I really, really, needed the money, I would have stayed, so I narrowly chose decisive.

    They didn’t have any explanations in wikisocion for serious/merry, so I just used the dictionary definitions, as well as my own extrapolations. When I was young, my cousins used to tease me for being too serious all the time, they would make jokes and I would say something like “That’s stupid.” They would just respond “It’s a joke! You’re too serious!” Now that I’m older, I think this one is a lot more vague, there’s a lot of mix-up, because I am fairly often silly and jocular, but I still tend to take some things, like minor tasks, much more seriously than my peers. I guess my natural response is more serious than merry, so I chose serious.

    Most of the others were fairly easy choices
    Carefree/Farsighted – Easy farsighted, I plan forward so much that I am negligent in the present, I am very rarely surprised, all descriptions in base paragraph are true

    Yielding/Obstinate- Obstinate, description is spot on

    Statics/Dynamics – Dynamics, maybe a little vague

    Aristocrats/Democrats – Democrats, easy

    Tactical/Strategic – Tactical, wasn’t an easy choice, although not nearly as hard as Judicious/Decisive. Eventually I chose tactical, after reviewing past decisions in life, as well as my own tendency to leave my projects open ended and easy to revise.

    Constructivist/Emotivist – Constructivist, easiest answer of them all.

    Positivist/Negativist – Negativist, easy

    Process/Result – Process, easy

    Asker/Declarer – Declarer, all of those apply to me, but a couple from asker apply to me as well, but those may be learned behaviors.

    If you have any questions, shoot.

  4. #4
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,375
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Microknight View Post
    If you have any questions, shoot.
    Thanks, your scores have been noted.

    I don't have any questions at the moment.

    I reread the Process dichotomy and I think it depends on how I interpretate things. I can now see that there are parts that might apply to me.

  5. #5
    Poster Nutbag The Exception's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    my own personal bubble
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    4,108
    Mentioned
    94 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    I searched through the forum's archives and found a thorough description of merry v.s. serious:

    CHEERFULNESS – SERIOUSNESS (subjectivity - objectivism)
    VESELOST – SEREZNOST (subektivizm - obektivizm)

    Cheerful, the subjectivists (I and II quadra):
    Veselye, oni zhe subektivisty (I i II kvadry):

    1. Cheerful are very good at noticing the general emotional background that accompanies contact with people (For example: enthusiasm, fun, stress and so on). Fun (And probably every other emotional experience) for them is allocated into a separate aspect of an activity (They can, for example, to a question on what they were doing answer: "We had fun" – the emotional aspect of the action is allocated)
    2. Cheerful does not perceive "getting to know somebody" as a special kind of activity (in contrast to the serious, for which it is a form of ritual). They know/realize very well why they are getting acquainted (the purpose of this acquaintance – interest, business and so on). In contrast to the serious they do not divide the process of acquainting into consecutive stages. They can immediately establish/determine emotional distance in contact and adapt/regulate it. They overcome boundaries between them and strangers by emotional incandescence (It can either bring them together or move them apart). The "name" behind the person is of secondary relevance, interest is on the person, relations are paramount and so on – therefore they do not count formality as a necessary part of acquaintance.
    3. The subjectivist, in contrast to the objectivist, is not inclined to deduce/derive "objectively accurate" laws and regularities (Summarizing/generalizing for this purpose their experiences and those of other people). Instead assumes that other people have different criteria, different views, therefore defines/treats another's actions as either accurate or incorrect, necessarily doing it with a "subjective" determining factors – evaluates in accordance to a personal system, "their system", actions, intentions and so on. Subjectivist are inclined to propose (Or to impose) not the "correct way" or some other way to do things – but general concepts on how to perform actions i.e. they do not say "Do it this way!" they say "Look at it this way!". They do not consider, in contrast to the objectivist, that in every situation there exists only one "objectively correct/true" way of doing something – in any situation, in their opinion, there are many ways one can act, approach/view the situation. When they feel something was done in an inappropriate manner they will most likely ask: "What is this?" (In contrast to the objectivist who will most likely ask "Who did this?"). When they speak of optimality they speak of optimality within a framework of the concept, they use a subjective approach (Form the point of view of being more optimal compared to what). Therefore they attempt to contrast other people's views to their own and to explain their position (To verify concepts): "If it is like that them we shall do this, it is different – we'll do something else"
    4. "Verification of concepts" - the general (common) phenomenon for subjectivists, it concerns not only the different was of acting/doing, but also concepts, terminology and so on. Subjectivists are in greater degree "adjusted" to the fact that different people have different meanings/understandings for same concepts, words and so on. The perceive the terminology (As well as actions of people) as a part of the subjective concept of different people – an extenuation of personal opinions, occupied positions, personal intention etc.: "So we have agreed that we shall name it this way". In contrast to he objectivist, who receives terminology as "objective", subjectivists understand the differences of terminologies (This concerns even well established terms) and they attempt to contrast them ("Well you say it is like that but I disagree")
    5. Lexicon: when discussing actions and joint activities they use expressions like "Let me present my point of view" "According to my understanding" "personal criteria" "it matches accepted beliefs" "I have concluded" "they insisted" and so on. They in detail describe verbal communication – especially their part in it, their "interventions" in the conversations and what they were (Or were not).

    Serious, the objectivists (III and IV kvadry):
    Sereznye, oni zhe obektivisty (III i IV kvadry):

    1. Serious are very bad at noticing the underlining emotional background, they do not perceive the emotional aspect of concepts/actions (for example "fun") separate from the concept/action itself and substitute them with their interpretations, concepts/words that have no direct emotional elements (Instead of the word "fun" they may use "entertainment", "leisure", "pleasure" and so on). They do not perceive the emotional exchange as a separate occurrence, they are inclined to mix it with other matters (They can have fun while working, when they are engaged in serious affairs, "just having fun")
    2. For the serious acquainting with new people is represented by a special ritual necessary for rapprochement with them (If this ritual was not carried out them the serious does not consider themselves acquainted, for example: "We did not introduce ourselves"). In situations of acquaintance for the serious it is easier if the affinity of contact (Emotional distance) is set externally i.e. the degree of emotional distance will be set by some sort of "mediator" (Whether this be a person, situation or something other) which allows to skip the first stage of establishing emotional distance and begin closer dialogue/contact. For overcoming boundaries between them and other people serious create (or they use already existing) "rules" or "rituals" for the step by step rapprochement. They are aware of all the stages of the process of acquainting (When the status changes from "strangers" to acquaintances). For the rapprochement for the serious it is important to know the name, title, any other thing that describes this new person – therefore formal representation is a very important stage of acquainting.
    3. In objectivists there is an idea of "objectively known facts", regularities, laws in general (common) experience; they consider that there exist "true in general", "always correct" laws. They suppose that other people 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 (This allows the existence of "objectively accurate" actions). Therefore from the point of view of the objectivists, actions can be different – subjective, determined by personal preferences and motives, and objective (Where there is only one "correct", "best" way to do something). Objectivists define actions as correct or incorrect contrasting them to their representation of what is "objectively correct". When they think that there is only one optimal solution, they are inclined to propose (Or impose) ways to accomplish an activity (Not propositions on how to accomplish an action like the subjectivist) which they think are the best: "No – you will do it "the correct way"". When speaking of optimality, they speak of optimality in general – "objective optimality" (they consider that they know the "correct", "best" ways of doing something). In joint activities they offer the "most effective" way of doing something. In disagreement they first "verify" concepts used, check whether the other person knows the concepts and terms "correctly".
    4. In contrast to the subjectivists, they are not inclined of "verification of concepts". They assume that the terms, concepts have only one unique interpretation ("correct", "accurate" one) – often they do not think about the fact that the other person may be interpreting them differently within the framework of other concepts. They operate with concepts like "objective reality" like unequivocal facts, in such cases they do not attempt to "verify the concepts": "It refers to this". Thus in those cases they consider that they know a thing correctly, how it "really is" (The view certain pictures of the world as uniquely true): "You say it's like this while in reality is like this".
    5. In description of actions or in discussion of joint activities instead of "explanatory" lexicon they give mass of examples (All "correct" and "incorrect" actions are based on examples)

    Note

    During research the hypothesis about the quadra related nature of entertainment has been show to be untrue. Also proven to be untrue was the widespread conviction that people with the serious attribute will not publicly display and behave in a "childish" manner. Probably in the majority of such cases (For example when adult people roll themselves down a hill) it is a typical "situation - intermediary" case, where the boundaries have been established by the intermediary.

    Hypothesis

    Dichotomy ethics – logic strengthens the attributes (Ethics strengthens cheerfulness, logic seriousness)

    Examples

    Cheerful (subjectivists):
    "Fun – lot's of emotions... company of friends, we exchange news, possibly go have a bite to eat, sing songs" "Fun – this is involvement, when you actively participate. When you look or read – these are instructions, fun – this is active, a state of constant excitement, something one cannot confuse with leisure/rest (a slack state)... perhaps fun for me it is – exciting contact, dialogue that (As oppose to a fight, quarrel and so on) bonds" "Reading books, opera – this is not fun... fun – lots of vitality" "Fun – a state of liberation where things do not seem serious" "Fun is pleasure, recklessness, everyone participates, dropping of boundaries" "If I'm in a company of new people and we do not introduce ourselves this to me has nothing to so with getting to know each other" "The majority of people with whom I "fray" - I do not know their name" "Anyone can follow established rules on how to engage contact, but it does not mean that you will actually get acquainted" "For me in company of others names are not important" "Only after a weak I remember what his name was even though we had already passionately kissed (About meeting her future husband)" "When I see that someone does something wrong, has problems with something, I first have to check if that is any of my business. If it concerns me, then my first reaction – to step back and give the proper way to "troubled person"... I have my own ideas on how to do things, "a mind of my own", as should be, but so does everyone else" "First you place the axe, then you explain why you did so" "I have considered what has been stated and conclude that is does concert to the given theme/topic"

    Serious (objectivists):
    "It is difficult for me to differentiate activity/work from fun. Fun... it is difficult to define" "I approach everything seriously, even rest" "It is always possible to find something прикольное in seriousness and vice versa" "To study/work is necessarily fun. Work without an entertainment element is impossible" "What constitutes "fun" – is not clear, what leisure is – that is clear, what is entertainment – that is as well" "It is important that I get introduced when I'm in company of people I never met before, or better yet, that they have been told a little about myself" "I engage other people in the manner suggested to me, I do not engage them if I do not know whether it will be "pleasant"" "I don't like it when other people "thrust" themselves upon me or when it is done on other people: suddenly my aunt, which I'm seeing for the first time, starts calling me her little "sugar-root" or some other thing like "[insert mushy expression here]" and so on." "The name is important, if a person does not say their name it often means that they do not want to have the conversation" "If it is done the wrong way? Oy! It is easier for me to grab it and do it myself then to waste my time explaining. In my opinion there is only one way to "hammer a nail"" "There are things with which it is clearly observable what is ineffective and if there are better ways of doing it. It's very irritating when a person consistently fails to see this and just keeps "hammering the nail backwards"" "When I see something performed "inappropriately" it makes my stomach churn" "It's great punishment when I see something that clearly contradicts common sense and I can do nothing about it. If I can interfere with the situation – I do, regardless if whether or not if it concerns me" "The methods/ways used by a person that steam from their experience (Are in their framework) – this is not the same thing as objective methods/ways of doing things (Evidenced by the results)"
    LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP



  6. #6
    Poster Nutbag The Exception's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    my own personal bubble
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    4,108
    Mentioned
    94 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'm an LII, but I want to play!

    Strongly judicious. I agree there needs to be more description of this dichotomy on the wiki.

    More merry than serious

    Hard time deciding on carefree/farsighted. I do alot of foreseeing and anticipating of possible outcomes but am very sensitive to sensory stimuli. After some thought I'd say I lean slightly towards carefree but I could be wrong on this.

    Slightly more yielding

    Strongly democratic

    Strongly strategic

    Slightly more constructivist. Another hard to decide one

    Strongly negativist

    Strongly process

    I couldn't decide between asking/declaring

    More static than dynamic. This is based on the wiki's description alone. After reading some other's input on this dichotomy, I started to identify more with dynamic, so who knows?
    LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP



  7. #7
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,375
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by warrior-librarian View Post
    I'm an LII, but I want to play!
    yeah no problem. I made this one for ILI's since I had all 'the right answers' looked up, which I could bold.

    I'll look up the LII results and see how the dichotomy's served its purpose.

  8. #8
    Azeroffs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    California
    TIM
    ENTj 3w4 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,216
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    yeah I had join in too

    slightly carefree, not sure

    Definitely yielding

    Dynamic

    Definitely democratic

    not sure tactical/strategic

    slightly emotivist, not sure

    not sure positivist/negativist
    some people tell me I'm always negative, but others I see as just too cynical. I'm just realistic..

    Decisive

    Definitely serious

    Result

    Definitely Declaring
    3w4-5w6-9w8

  9. #9

    Default

    Farsighted types
    Obstinate types
    Dynamics
    Democrats
    Tactical types>Strategic types, but both apply to some extent.
    Constructivists
    Negativists
    Decisive
    Serious
    Process/Result, both apply equally well
    Declarers>Askers, I'm more of a declarer that asker, but it's not very rare that I ask questions. Well irl it's somewhat rare actually.

    With that combination, if I select result instead of process, the combination doesn't apply to any type at all.
    ...the human race will disappear. Other races will appear and disappear in turn. The sky will become icy and void, pierced by the feeble light of half-dead stars. Which will also disappear. Everything will disappear. And what human beings do is just as free of sense as the free motion of elementary particles. Good, evil, morality, feelings? Pure 'Victorian fictions'.

    INTp

  10. #10
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,375
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Warlord View Post
    Process/Result, both apply equally well
    I see you too have a problem with that one.

    Thanks for participating and your score has been noted.

    The end conclusion will be next week or so.

  11. #11
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,375
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by incognito View Post
    I'm for the most part convinced (although open to alternatives) that I'm ILI, but, this dichotomy contradicts. I'm quite comfortable with Result and not Process. (shrug)
    Yes, and that's rather an indicator that you are ILI since it seems to be typical for ILI's to have problems with that particular dichotomy :-)

    scores are noted and thanks for participating.

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarno View Post
    Yes, and that's rather an indicator that you are ILI since it seems to be typical for ILI's to have problems with that particular dichotomy :-)
    Yeah it seems, that either there is some problem with that dichotomy, or the wikisocion description is just inaccurate. My main problems with it was related to multitasking.
    ...the human race will disappear. Other races will appear and disappear in turn. The sky will become icy and void, pierced by the feeble light of half-dead stars. Which will also disappear. Everything will disappear. And what human beings do is just as free of sense as the free motion of elementary particles. Good, evil, morality, feelings? Pure 'Victorian fictions'.

    INTp

  13. #13
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    According to my views on the subject, you're supposed to identify with Result as an INTp when it comes to physical, practical tasks or anything commonly associated with the ST club. INTps are most like ISTps (a Result type) when it comes to such things.

    This view is shared by user Smilingeyes, if I'm not mistaken.

  14. #14
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,375
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The end conclusion.

    To keep it simple I've split the Reinin dichotomies in reliable and unreliable, based on the results of this thread.

    Reliable wikisocion descriptions of reinin dichotomies:

    Farsighted / Carefree
    Obstinate / Yielding
    Democrate / Aristocrate
    Constructive / Emotivist
    Negativist / Positivist
    Declare / Ask

    Unreliable wikisocion descriptions of reinin dichotomies:

    Dynamic / Static
    Tactical / Strategic
    Decisive / Judicious
    Serious / Merry
    Process / Result
    Last edited by Jarno; 06-26-2009 at 10:34 PM.

  15. #15
    ragnar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    635
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Carefree: 30%
    Farsighted: 50%

    Yielding: 67%
    Obstinate: 33%

    Statics: 1/3
    Dynamics: 1/3

    Aristocrats: 100%
    Democrats: 50%

    Tactical: 50%
    Strategic:50%


    Constructivists: 16%
    Emotivists: 15%
    Positivists: 70%
    Negativists: 70%

    Judicious: 80%
    Decisive: 0-20%

    Process: 40%
    Result: 67%

    Askers: 30%
    Declarers: 37%

    I did this very fast, not much thought or anything. Accuracy probably not very high.
    Greetings, ragnar
    ILI knowledge-seeker

  16. #16
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,375
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ragnar View Post

    I did this very fast,
    But still to late. What happened to your intuition for time

    I will check your results, see whether something is out of the ordinary.


    ...and yes it is. Most answers are not as the average ILI's. But it's probably just poor Reinin descriptions...

  17. #17
    Poster Nutbag The Exception's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    my own personal bubble
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    4,108
    Mentioned
    94 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ragnar View Post
    Carefree: 30%
    Farsighted: 50%

    Yielding: 67%
    Obstinate: 33%

    Statics: 1/3
    Dynamics: 1/3

    Aristocrats: 100%
    Democrats: 50%

    Tactical: 50%
    Strategic:50%


    Constructivists: 16%
    Emotivists: 15%
    Positivists: 70%
    Negativists: 70%

    Judicious: 80%
    Decisive: 0-20%

    Process: 40%
    Result: 67%

    Askers: 30%
    Declarers: 37%

    I did this very fast, not much thought or anything. Accuracy probably not very high.
    How come not all of the percentages add up to 100?
    LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP



  18. #18
    Creepy-Pied Piper

    Default

    Removed at User Request

  19. #19
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,375
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ephemeros View Post
    Specify that your conclusion is about reliable/unreliable descriptions, not the dichotomies themselves!
    yep. I'll edit it.

  20. #20
    Trevor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,860
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @ephemeros According to my views on the subject, you're supposed to identify with Result as an ENTp when it comes to physical, practical tasks or anything commonly associated with the ST club. ENTps are most like ESTps (a Result type) when it comes to such things.

    This view is shared by user Smilingeyes, if I'm not mistaken.

    Check this out:
    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat
    NTp Process is about mental occupation; not resting until you have solved a problem.
    STp Result is about spontaneously reacting to the immediate environment. Making assessments on the immediate situation and adjusting them continually. Being "in sync" with reality.
    SFp Process is about locking down something that needs to be said or done.
    NFp Result is about thinking up a funny/interesting/worthwhile thing to do and/or say on the basis of cues received from the environment. Witty, manouverable, reactive social behavior. The classical sense of humor.
    NTj Result is about decision making; cutting things off; resisting occupation. Giving your opinion "at first glance" and not worrying about how much better your views could be if you considered the situation longer than you did.
    STj Process is about physical occupation; focussedly acting towards a defined practical goal. Ignoring input from the environment while subjecting it to your plan.
    SFj Result is about polite social manouvering; making small contributions in many different places. Not siding with anyone in particular: political ambiguousness.
    NFj Process is about political occupation; devoting yourself to a cause. Having a purpose so important you have keep, keep and keep contributing to it.
    Also this:

    Quote Originally Posted by smilingeyes
    On the process - result dichotomy and what it means regarding socionic relations. And keys to acting correctly.

    Process-result relates to the appreciation of different functions, to how much energy is spent with certain tasks and how much importance is given them. The big divide is between rationals and irrationals.

    Rationals are intensive and process-oriented and care about the task itself when it's something to do with ST or NF clubs that is humanist ideals and ethics and OTOH the execution of a practical task. They are sort of slip-shod and oriented towards quick results (have no personal investment on how the result is reached) when oriented towards NT and SF things. Irrationals vice versa.
    I myself today feel very INFj process-like.

  21. #21
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    ENTps only really become Process when they use their Ti. It's when they really try to find out the truth about something or when they try to make a point that they become focussed and thorough about things. Same goes for INTps and their Te.

    I'm currently working together with an ENTp on a very Ti-heavy project. There really is no stopping him when he is in that zoned-out, focused state.

  22. #22
    ragnar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    635
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by warrior-librarian View Post
    How come not all of the percentages add up to 100?
    This is a Ti question - week spot with me.

    To save myself a headache I'll stick to this:
    Quote Originally Posted by ragnar
    I did this very fast, not much thought or anything. Accuracy probably not very high.
    Otherwise, one may go into lengthy ruminations about various formal logics and what not. Here's a place to start: Classical logic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Greetings, ragnar
    ILI knowledge-seeker

  23. #23
    Currently God Brilliand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Nevada
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    4,246
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ragnar View Post
    This is a Ti question - week spot with me.
    Let's see if I can answer for you.

    It's because you considered each description in itself, and rated what percent of that description you related to. The percentage for, say, Merry, was not tweaked based on how much you related to Serious.



    LII-Ne

    "Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
    - Blair Houghton

    Johari

  24. #24
    ragnar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    635
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brilliand View Post
    Let's see if I can answer for you.
    Greetings, ragnar
    ILI knowledge-seeker

  25. #25
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,375
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by polikujm View Post
    To widen your sample a bit: I'm fairly sure I'm an ILI,
    that's your 4th selftyping this month...

  26. #26
    Creepy-Pied Piper

    Default

    Removed at User Request

  27. #27
    Creepy-Pied Piper

    Default

    Removed at User Request

  28. #28
    Poster Nutbag The Exception's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    my own personal bubble
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    4,108
    Mentioned
    94 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarno View Post
    that's your 4th selftyping this month...
    How about a poll- What will Polikijum's next self-typing be? :wink:
    LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP



  29. #29
    Poster Nutbag The Exception's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    my own personal bubble
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    4,108
    Mentioned
    94 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ragnar View Post
    This is a Ti question - week spot with me.
    You never really explained why they don't add up to 100%. I guess this proves you're my quasi-identical
    LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP



  30. #30
    Creepy-Pied Piper

    Default

    Removed at User Request

  31. #31
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    8,337
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by warrior-librarian View Post
    How about a poll- What will Polikijum's next self-typing be? :wink:
    I'm done with polls. No one here knows me or my thought process, or how to type based upon forum status, obviously. It's not up to you guys, and I've been listening to your arguments which don't seem to speak my language. Your external inspections are no match for this internal sphere of solidity and zeal.

    This is my original typing in the first place

    so let's just say I went on a little adventure, and call it quits.

Posting Permissions

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