Properties Conflictors have in common

[krieger]

The most well known of them is Static/Dynamic. For conflictors to conflict in the first place it is needed that they operate on the same playing field, seek to fill in the same niche and end up finding someone else that tries to do this in ways they aren't familiar with that as a result look unpredictable and possibly malicious. Static/Dynamic signifies this "playing field".

Now if there are any other traits that conflictors share, they must be denoted by the Reinin dichotomies Emotivism/Constructivism and Tactical/Strategical. I want people to become aware that this is the main use of these dichotomies. For just about every other kind of typing dilemma, there are stronger/more influential dichotomies available to base decisions on. It's when one has intuitions along the lines of "this person somehow looks INFp or ESTj" that one needs to start looking at these dichotomies to find out what property one has been noticing.

One interesting question is wether there actually exist properties besides Static/Dynamic that conflictors have in common. The answer of this question dictates wether Emotivism/Constructivism and Tactical/Strategical have any right of existance at all. Actually we can just as easily turn the question on it's head and say that if the dichotomies are real, conflictors must have things in common that can be detected. The important thing is that we give these dichotomies a small measure of empirical verifyability where they previously had none.

ESFp-INTj: both Emotivist, Strategical, Calculated, Obstinate
ENFp-ISTj: both Emotivist, Tactical, Carefree and Obstinate
ENTp-ISFj: both Constructivist, Tactical, Carefree and Compliant
ESTp-INFj: both Constructivist, Strategical, Calculated and Compliant

INTp-ESFj: both Constructivist, Tactical, Calculated and Obstinate
INFp-ESTj: both Emotivist, Tactical, Calculated and Compliant
ISFp-ENTj: both Emotivist, Strategical, Carefree and Compliant
ISTp-ENFj: both Constructivist, Strategical, Carefree and Obstinate

So, the next time you are undecided between one type and it's conflictor, think of these dichotomies and you may be able to attach a name to what you've seen.

[Trevor]

Not every Strategical type is equally strategic. However they all are Strategic.
Continuum vs Categories thing.

I want people to become aware that this is the main use of these dichotomies. For just about every other kind of typing dilemma, there are stronger/more influential dichotomies available to base decisions on.

In what kind of typing dilemma are Obstinate/Compliant and Carefree/Farsighted stronger/more influential dichotomies to base decisions on? If any?

[Trevor]

It's when one has intuitions along the lines of "this person somehow looks INFp or ESTj" that one needs to start looking at these dichotomies to find out what property one has been noticing.

Not necessarily. It might be(and I believe it to be so although I can't prove it yet) that there are such properties which are shared by a certain conflictor-pair but not shared by the other conflictor pairs of same Strategicity or Emotivity and/or whatever. In other and perhaps more different words: I believe that there are such properties that are shared by INFp-ESTj conflictor pair only, and that do not correlate significantly with any of the Reinin dichotomies. This is the reason why Type Descriptions are more powerful tool than Dichotomy Descriptions when it comes to typing people.

Also, there are, I believe, such properties which are to be attributed to a particular type only and not to the other types.This is the reason why Type Descriptions are more powerful tool than Dichotomy Descriptions when it comes to typing people.

[krieger]

Not every Strategical type is equally strategic. However they all are Strategic.
Continuum vs Categories thing.

How is this relevant? I'm talking about catagories only as is conventional when discussing Reinin.

In what kind of typing dilemma are Obstinate/Compliant and Carefree/Farsighted stronger/more influential dichotomies to base decisions on? If any?

What are you talking about? I said there are dichotomies that are stronger and more influential, not that Obstinate/Compliant and Carefree/Farsighted is one of them. If there are situations in which those dichotomies are useful I have not found them yet.

Not necessarily. It might be(and I believe it to be so although I can't prove it yet) that there are such properties which are shared by a certain conflictor-pair but not shared by the other conflictor pairs of same Strategicity or Emotivity and/or whatever.

In as far such properties exist, we can not generalize over them and we can not make them contribute to our understanding of the types. So I see no reason to worry about them.

Also, there are, I believe, such properties which are to be attributed to a particular type only and not to the other types.This is the reason why Type Descriptions are more powerful tool than Dichotomy Descriptions when it comes to typing people.

The problem with Type Descriptions is that properties of the specific people that they are based on get mixed in with the characteristics of the type. Usually they overspecify the characteristics and end up describing something altogther different from the whole group of members of the type. The only way to get the correct view is to use both methods and correct one using the other.

[DirectorAbbie]

Aristocratic/Democratic

[krieger]

Aristocratic/Democratic

Good call.

A.k.a. the property that opposite quadra members nevertheless have in common.

[krieger]

Another that I missed:

Taciturn/Narrator

[Trevor]

I said there are dichotomies that are stronger and more influential, not that Obstinate/Compliant and Carefree/Farsighted is one of them.

So we agree on that. Good.

If there are situations in which those dichotomies are useful I have not found them yet.

Thank you.

In as far such properties exist, we can not generalize over them and we can not make them contribute to our understanding of the types. So I see no reason to worry about them.

Why can't we make them contribute to our understanding of the types? I think we should make them contribute because there are only 16 types and memorizing those contributions doesn't seem much of an attack to our memory storage capacity(I might be wrong on this, however prolonged storing of those and similar contributions is likely to bring us up to the point where we are no longer regular socionicists, we are in fact socionics Gurus, we no longer learn things by heart mainly wondering where does this come from, instead we feel the things in a major way, that feels great btw).

The problem with Type Descriptions is that properties of the specific people that they are based on get mixed in with the characteristics of the type. Usually they overspecify the characteristics and end up describing something altogther different from the whole group of members of the type. The only way to get the correct view is to use both methods and correct one using the other.

Yeah, agreed. What I was having in mind was: try to imagine an ideal situation of a sort. We are to make our own categorization, let us make the types Watson! So we chose our criteriae, and voila..we have the types. Because things are rarely simple, induction leads us to think that things might not be simple when it comes to our new types as well. There are things that might be said about the types right away, however many things are possibly left unsaid, unexplained, and whatever. So we approach our typed subjects and we are to make some kind of empirical research on them, to know them better basically. So as we gather a bunch of data and apply all sorts of analitycal tricks on them, we come into the possession of relations previously unknown to us, we also come into the possession of properties pertaining to particular types which were previously unknown to us. We now know something about GZUjs, ISTds, ESFjs and etceteras which we maybe didn't know before, in those times when we only knew that GZUj is a G, a Z, an U, and a j. Then, we start to feel particularly good about ourselves. Some of our tasks have been accomplished and new tasks arise rapidly in the light of our new understanding. Now, we can also make new and far more superior type descriptions.

This was an ideal scenario IMO. The problem many of us suffer from is: we sometimes make easy to pick up criteria in order to gain some new type related knowledge, however my easy to pick up criteria is not necessarily yours or whatever's easy to pick up criteria. So we basically end up in various disagreements which are not to be gordian-unknotted until we recognize the incompatibility of our basic, type-defining premises. This path is tempting because it reduces typing people to the level of tying your shoelaces. Of course, there might be some progress and prosperity given that most of people are not so insane to not recognize when they are labeling fundamentally different things with the same label. This was how things unfold in a top-to-bottom way.

Regarding bottom-to-top phaedrus approach to types and typing. First thing's first, bottom-to-top approach presuposes(if not presuposes than at least hopes) that there is something on the top..otherwise you walk throughout the city with no goal in your mind, and consequently, you get nowhere. OK, blah blah...to make it short, people are making mistakes of substituting properties that have positive correlation(and sometimes even negative, what do you know) with the main categorization criteria for the main criteria itself. Those properties are often easy to distinguish and it often reduces typing people to the level of tying your shoelaces. All of this often accompanied with refusal to take other, perhaps relevant, things into account. So they sometimes wind up talking nonsense. What makes prosperity and progress possible is the fact that the correlation is in most cases positive and warranted but not equal to +1, and also the fact that most of people are not so insane to not recognize when they are not taking some important bit of information into account. This is often recognized after other people make remarks of his stupidity. Their, taken as a whole, remarks of his stupidity are often true because they are smarter when working together. Their reasoning flaws get rejected easier(people's and his). They are a Borg of a kind.

These two ways are knotted together in a way which makes my head hurt, and maybe explode..The only way to get the correct view is to use both methods and correct one using the other. Actually, these two ways as described by me are one and the same thing. We should listen more to Talanov. He actually did made some research on the type-related properties. There are only 16 types. It's not so hard to memorize his findings in the glory of our future understanding. I appeal to you, dear friends; read what Talanov has to say..and maybe some day, you too will be a socionics guru.

[krieger]

I hope that satisfies your need to post random gibberish in the thread I had hoped to reserve for constructive discussion (?).

I'm not sure how I could have missed this, but Obstinate/Compliant and Carefree/Calculated are also shared between Conflictors.

Very strange because I started the thread with the idea that Conflictors are identical in regard to the more obscure Large Cycle Dichotomies, which turns out the be correct after all.

[krieger]

Another way to phrase the main point:

If the Reinin dichotomies are real, there should be A LOT of properties that we can identify as being common between Conflictors.

One might want to ask oneself wether this is true and/or conforms to observation and what conclusions one might draw about the Reinin dichotomies on the basis of such a judgment.

[Trevor]

Very strange because I started the thread with the idea that Conflictors are identical in regard to the more obscure Large Cycle Dichotomies, which turns out the be correct after all.

No wonder they are obscure, given that Conflictors are generally not mistaken one for another. Yes, you can make dichotomies out of everything, especially if you're AccTi and?/or Wladimir Koeppen, but it's often futile. Not all dichotomies are equally important.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Er no.

Like energies *repel* but they don't really conflict. Confliction is magnetic energy gone awry, it is very frustrating as you can't help but be around your conflictor, like magnets- but when you meet up, you still clash.

You're probably going to find things wrong with that but that's how I see it.

It's important to not judge types too quickly. Types take a good 6 months to reveal themselves, because of how naturally guarded people are around others, not being their 'real selves' for understandable self-protection reasons. Types are about close psychological distance....not 'OMG I JUST MET A REALLY COOL PERSON, IS IT MY DUAL?' Although maybe we're so self-aware and enlightened we can type that quickly, but I really doubt it....

[Trevor]

If the Reinin dichotomies are real, there should be A LOT of properties that we can identify as being common between Conflictors.

There should not. Only property that is required is the accordance with the criteria. There is nothing more required than that. The only thing required for dichotomy to be named as such is A or non-A. However, the question is; how important those are? You were obviously referring to that when you said "real". They are not that important IMO nor they are easily visible. Hm, who knows?..maybe they are important after all, maybe even more than we can think of..it may also be that we confuse their general visibility with their importance. I certainly do, and rightfully so IMO.

[krieger]

No wonder they are obscure, given that Conflictors are generally not mistaken one for another.

Tell that to Smilingeyes. For some reason he never mentioned the fact that these dichotomies are less influential than the conventional ones.

[Blaze]

It's important to not judge types too quickly. Types take a good 6 months to reveal themselves, because of how naturally guarded people are around others, not being their 'real selves' for understandable self-protection reasons. Types are about close psychological distance....not 'OMG I JUST MET A REALLY COOL PERSON, IS IT MY DUAL?' Although maybe we're so self-aware and enlightened we can type that quickly, but I really doubt it....

lol, yeah. do you really think it takes 6 months though? i'm not sure it takes that long, but def more than a couple of meetings. i've found it's easier to type people i've only recently met. people i've known awhile...i'm never sure, since i know so much about them!

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Most people are very guarded with their feelings and stuff, and letting you in really closely, you know? I mean their actual feelings not just social graces or the kind of fake "superficial Fe" that used to get complained about a lot on the forums....

So I say 6 months yeah is a good time frame. Maybe even longer.

I like how Rick said you can get along with all types as long as you know the proper psychological distance, the intertype relationships are based on psychological closeness. You won't just conflict with your conflictor saying 'Hi' at the office every morning that's just silly. Just don't try to marry them lol. To get a very 'pure' accurate of how type relationships play out, you could be in a mental institution or group therapy place with people. That would do it easily Imo but for most normal society, it's all gonna feel like the 'same' and general/boring. Until it doesn't, but it happens very slowly and organically.

[FDG]

Yeah, I agree with the first post.

[krieger]

do you have any comments regarding that property as it specifically applies to conflictors? or any comments on that dichotomy in general?

It describes the property that opposite quadras share. It also describes the property that opposite clubs share, because opposite quadras have the same clubs inside them.

If you type a person using quadras and clubs, then you don't need to think of this dichotomy individually in regard to the typing. The meaning of "aristocrat/democrat" is already embedded in that of NT/NF/SF/ST and Alpha/Beta/Gamma/Delta. In other words, to say a person is Gamma and Democrat is redundant, so just say Gamma. Likewise to say a person is NF and Aristocrat is redundant, so you can just use NF and be done with things.

So what the dichotomy remains useful for, is understanding the clubs and quadras. There isn't a lot to say in regard to the implications to the specific conflictor pairs or conflictors in general. It's all about quadras and clubs.

The described meaning is usually along the lines of...

Democrat = more independent and individualist, members seen as separate agents and not so much as parts of a group or organization
Aristocrat = more role dependent and interdependent, members are defined in terms of their function in- and affliations to a group or organization

In Democratic quadras, the "external" functions (Sensing, Thinking), which signify power and control, are evenly distributed among members. In Aristocrat quadras, the ST types have all the control and the NF types have the clearest overview of things but relatively little power. So the distribution is more uneven among Aristocrats and interdependence is emphasized as a result.

Smilingeyes:

Aristocratic/democratic type: Aristocratic
It is inclined to test theories and systems of morality in action, and thereby twist them until they break. By its actions it changes the 'judging' to the 'perceiving'. It tends to understand rules, theories, systems, feelings and social relations in a definite, binding way and do what they make it do. But the activity that it is pushed to, makes it question the original idea that made it act.

Aristocratic/democratic type: Democratic
It is inclined to bring together concrete issues, materials and people that all tend to find things in common with each other and create new ideas, theories, social bonds, duties, agreements and such. It turns concrete wealth into social resources. By itself it's weak, it tries to increase the interdependence of people.

I interpret the above as meaning the Aristocrats are the ones that take commitments for granted, whereas the Democrats are the ones that are playing around with commitments but never really go all the way at them.

Original description (first that was posted on the forum):

Democrats (I and III quadra):
Demokraty (I i III kvadry):

1. Democrat perceives and determines himself primarily through individual/personal qualities. In perception of other people personal qualities of people are primary (In terms of personality: are they interesting, pleasant, unpleasant: their wit, ideas, appearance, tastes etc.). because of this individualism is largely a part of, inherent in democrat "I am I".
2. They form their relations/attitude toward a person based on their individual/personal characteristics (Authority, intellect, personal achievement etc.). They recognize advantages/qualities people that are independent of their personal/individual qualities. The relation of the democrat to another person will not be based on their belonging to one group or another, or their relations to the representatives of these groups.
3. They are not inclined to perceive people with which they associate, as representatives of a certain "group of contacts" they have that possess a special quality inherent specifically to people in that group.
4. Democrat is not inclined to use expressions that generalize "group features" of people (For example, "a typical representative") in their speech.

Aristocrats (II and IV kvadry):
Aristokraty (II i IV kvadry):

1. The aristocrat frequently perceives and defines themselves an other people through group belonging (The division into groups can occur based on almost any criteria: professional, the floor they live on, age, nationality, place of residence etc.), for example: "I'm a representative of..." "This ? from such and such". Colectivism is more inherent in the aristocrat.
2. Their attitude toward another person forms under the influence of their attitude/relation with the group to which the person belongs. To the aristocrat is incomprehensible how it is possible to belong to two opposing groups at the same time "You are either with us or them ?against us"
3. Aristocrat separates their "circle of contacts" by a sign, realizes certain "qualities" their friends have.
4. In speech aristocrat frequently use expressions like "group", "typical representative", "ours", "all [insert group] are [insert quality]", etc.