Using Reinin Dichotomies Effectively

[717495]

Forget the tally chart for now. What you want to do is read up on the dichotomies, and look for some you are very sure about. Don't just assume you're sure about all of them, but chose the few that really stick out.

Two that really stick out for me (upon reading the descriptions at wikisocion) are "carefree" and "result." So I know, there is a pretty good chance versus all the other possibilities, that I am a carefree and a result type.

There are only 3 carefree and result types. SLI, IEE, and ESI. Now what you have here is a decent basis for analysis. I can look more in depth at these 3 types. I can also assume that all of the other dichotomies may or may not work, but I know that I have covered the main two that I am sure about, so there should be much less of a problem along the way. This is called prioritizing.

So I look through the other dichotomies, and a lot of them don't stick out too strongly. I couldn't say with absolute certainty I'm more of this than that. However I do think of myself as more of a logical type, at the same time I can see myself valuing Si, and PoLR Fe is a theme I can relate to, versus something like PoLR Ne. So I can probably rule out ESI with more confidence.

Now we do something more like the tally chart. There are only two types left, (and let's say most of the tallies are under SLI, if I only have the time to speculate.) So there you have a more than decent proposal using Reinin Dichotomies (if say you want to use the system in the first place.) This is a better method than the tally system in my opinion, because you're not forced to decide. You can weigh your priorities.

One last thing I can do is go back and read all the reinin dichotomies for SLI and see how many disagreements I come to. Because I prioritized my answers, this reading should have the least amount of disagreements than if I chose a different, more symmetrically assuming approach, which does not always work. It turns out that I did not come to any stark disagreements upon reading, but I, personally, am still speculating. However if I were to force myself to chose for every dichotomy ahead of time, there is a good chance that the tallies would not have come up with SLI. But instead, SLI might be somewhere in the middle rank, as well as IEE. Two dichotomies I am quite sure about would only get 13% of the say.

Anyway, I think this method is fairly obvious to a lot of people. There are a certain few who could be a bit more lenient and weigh their options more personally. Lastly, I'm not necessarily saying Reinin dichotomies will effectively give you your type result, but a lot of people seem to trust them, and I might come to see that they're much more useful than they currently seem. It is, after all, just another theory, and another assumption to how Socionics is organized, and I can't effectively read Reinin's mind to understand what he thoroughly intended. I can only assume.

[717495]

So the basic assumption with this method is that you don't have enough information. A problem one might face in force deciding is seeing another person as a definite candidate for one end of a dichotomy, say "emotivist," and by contrast one might see themselves as "constructivist" simply because they're not as emotivist as that person. Well this is what you don't want to take a chance on. You would much rather leave that question blank until you have some selected down choices. What you do have, however, is a reason to type that other person. He/she is definitely an emotivist, you have just eliminated half of the possibilities.

[Azeroffs]

LIE is carefree/result too =]

[717495]

Oh, you're right. Dichotomy wise, SLI is still a better fit. The main idea is still there, I think.

[greed]

I'll give this one a go.. pretty interesting method you've got here.

We might not be considering sensing-intuition to be a Reinin dichotomy here, but there's no way that I'm not intuitive. It's my strongest dichotomy of the 15, bar none. It just makes sense to start with it.

According to the entry on wikisocion, I'm definitely result-oriented, especially regarding multitasking and reading random passages and paragraphs. I thought that'd be an ILE trait, too. And I thought that result-oriented types would be the sequence-following ones. I guess I was wrong.

That leaves: LII, IEI, LIE, IEE.

I see myself as more of an extrovert, so, LIE and IEE. And between the two of those, I see myself as Si-valuing more than Se-valuing. So, probably IEE.

As far as IEE's other dichotomies, I see myself as "middle-of-the-road" ethical/logical and probably slightly more irrational than rational--at least, neither dichotomy "stands out" to me. None of the other dichotomies strike me as terribly right or wrong.


Other than the oddball peculiarities I noted about the process/result dichotomy, I could see a lot of value in your method. But then, those peculiarities are just too much to ignore, too.. either I'm not understanding process/result, or the dichotomy itself is just jacked up

[krieger]

ISTp prioritization skills aren't that hot. They tend to get mesmerized by gadgets and let bussiness oppurtunities decide what their goals are. They rarely buy anything with an idea of what to use it for and what long term goal to acheive with it. If the deal is "good" they will buy the thing regardless of wether they need it. To me, their sense of priority looks almost random.

ENTjs are similar in this regard. They try to far to large an extent to find something positive in everything they encounter. In a sense they are bad at rejecting things, too eager to give things the benefit of the doubt. The result is that they end up encumbered with all kinds of tools, jobs, responsibilities and knowledge that don't form a rational whole and leave them with very little directed control of their own lives.

ISTjs are an example of the opposite. Everything they do is goal directed. Everything that suits the goal is accepted, everything else rejected. Their problem is generally that they don't review and criticize their own goals enough to the point it becomes an arbitrary obsession.

[Nexus]

ISTp prioritization skills aren't that hot. They tend to get mesmerized by gadgets and let bussiness oppurtunities decide what their goals are. They rarely buy anything with an idea of what to use it for and what long term goal to acheive with it. If the deal is "good" they will buy the thing regardless of wether they need it. To me, their sense of priority looks almost random.

ENTjs are similar in this regard. They try to far to large an extent to find something positive in everything they encounter. In a sense they are bad at rejecting things, too eager to give things the benefit of the doubt. The result is that they end up encumbered with all kinds of tools, jobs, responsibilities and knowledge that don't form a rational whole and leave them with very little directed control of their own lives.

ISTjs are an example of the opposite. Everything they do is goal directed. Everything that suits the goal is accepted, everything else rejected. Their problem is generally that they don't review and criticize their own goals enough to the point it becomes an arbitrary obsession.

LSI is methodical, LIE and SLI are goal-oriented; what you described for SLI sounds more like and id, which is what I have (especially the lack of perceptual preference); the lack of self-criticism and judgement you described fos LSI sounds much more like SLI to me

[Galen]

The ones that stick out for me particularly are constructivism and yielding, slight emphases on far-sighted and strategic. I'm definitely not ESTp, so that would make me INFj?

[717495]

Probably.

[Galen]

Assuming the Reinin dichotomies are foolproof, of which I'm sorta doubtful.

[717495]

I don't expect anyone seeing them as all that qualifying. I don't see them that way either, but I've still found the method interesting due to that fact that I was surprised that I fit into the PoLR Fe, IP, category like I should, with them however. Yet if they don't prove to be that much of more use, I'll have to reinvestigate my last typing of ILI, which I already have done many times.

[Azeroffs]

The ones that stick out for me particularly are constructivism and yielding, slight emphases on far-sighted and strategic. I'm definitely not ESTp, so that would make me INFj?

You're EII, accept it!

Seriously though, it's odd that you picked 4 dichotomies that point to EII and away from IEE if you are in fact IEE.

[Not A Communist Shill]

The six I'm most sure of are: Statics, Constructivism, Compliancy, Process, Reasonable, and Democracy, which makes me an ENTp.

If I force myself to choose from every Reinin dichotomy, I still get ENTp.

[Nexus]

Assuming the Reinin dichotomies are foolproof, of which I'm sorta doubtful.

they are foolproof if you know what they mean

[Galen]

You're EII, accept it!

Seriously though, it's odd that you picked 4 dichotomies that point to EII and away from IEE if you are in fact IEE.

It could be just as likely that I'm wrong all four of those times :O
Never underestimate the indecisive power of my own brain.

they are foolproof if you know what they mean

I suppose, but the trouble is that the only descriptions I know of (Wikisocion) aren't all that exact.

[Nexus]

It could be just as likely that I'm wrong all four of those times



I suppose, but the trouble is that the only descriptions I know of (Wikisocion) aren't all that exact.

yeah, wikisocion doesn't get the point across

you have to understand that the traits are not just adjectives, they are forces in the psyche which necessitate other reinin traits in order to realize the motive of an information metabolism; if you realize that the reinin traits form a mathematical Abelian group, it is much easier to examine how they affect each other and give rise to egos, quadra values, and relationships. If you have a question concerning a particular trait I can try to help you understand it.

[Galen]

My biggest query pertains to tactical/strategic and process/result. I feel that I have at least some grasp on what they describe, but to me they seem to be measuring much the same thing.

Also polikujm, you change your type way too often for you to be decisive.

[Nexus]

My biggest query pertains to tactical/strategic and process/result. I feel that I have at least some grasp on what they describe, but to me they seem to be measuring much the same thing.

Also polikujm, you change your type way too often for you to be decisive.

well I can tell you process types are geared more towards punishment-based conditioning and they can be very defensive...result types focus on rewards and are better at being offensive...

supervision of process is alpha (sympathy) => beta (denial) => gamma (anger) => delta (admission)

supervision of result is delta (admission) => gamma (anger) => beta (denial) => alpha (sympathy)

tactical types are methodical whereas strategic types are goal-oriented

[Galen]

well I can tell you process types are geared more towards punishment-based conditioning and they can be very defensive...result types focus on rewards and are better at being offensive...

That sounds a lot more like positivism vs negativism though. Is this actually how the dichotomy is defined, or is this just personal observation?

[krieger]

LSI is methodical, LIE and SLI are goal-oriented;

None of this is incompatible with what I wrote. ENTjs do focus on goals, but they don't personally invest in the goal. There is no personal passion in their pursuing of it. They act very much according to a typical capitalist mentality: if the job pays, it's worth doing. INTj and ISTj act more according to a feeling of what value an activity has. This creates the sense of prioritization that is characteristic of them.

what you described for SLI sounds more like and id, which is what I have (especially the lack of perceptual preference);

If there is any way in which you disagree with the descriptions I'd like to know the details. As an INTj my type should be very similar to yours, and I do not identify with the description in the slightest. My ISTj brother doesn't either.

the lack of self-criticism and judgement you described fos LSI sounds much more like SLI to me

The lack of self-criticism is a general ST club trait. The activity of taking a step back and reviewing the correctness of your beliefs is characteristic of the NT club. STs prefer to delegate the criticism to others, so end up acting on others' behalf a lot (like an employee or executive).

[Nexus]

None of this is incompatible with what I wrote. ENTjs do focus on goals, but they don't personally invest in the goal. There is no personal passion in their pursuing of it. They act very much according to a typical capitalist mentality: if the job pays, it's worth doing. INTj and ISTj act more according to a feeling of what value an activity has. This creates the sense of prioritization that is characteristic of them.

If there is any way in which you disagree with the descriptions I'd like to know the details. As an INTj my type should be very similar to yours, and I do not identify with the description in the slightest. My ISTj brother doesn't either.

The lack of self-criticism is a general ST club trait. The activity of taking a step back and reviewing the correctness of your beliefs is characteristic of the NT club. STs prefer to delegate the criticism to others, so end up acting on others' behalf a lot (like an employee or executive).

That is incorrect, all rationals are inescapably very in tune with personal responsibility; it is true that as autocrats STs have a lot of agency, but they also have intuitive feeling rather than intuitive thinking, which both manifests in the impetus for agency and simultaneously allows them to step back like any other type; they are not slaves or zombies...what you said about LIE and investment is very subjective, but you are correct about the capitalist mentality...my uncle is SLI and he behaves just like this; however, it is the ISTjs that are easily distracted and it is because they are feeling, thinking, and sensing, but not intuitive (for example, Homer Simpson); lack of particularly makes it hard for an LSI to come up with good uses for things though as deciding types they can be very resourceful when they have to be when a real decision is necessary. Neither LSI nor SLI are very good at seeing ahead, as carefree types. SLI is a dynamic result type, so perhaps that is what gives rise to the spontaneous emergence of methodology that you described.

[Nexus]

That sounds a lot more like positivism vs negativism though. Is this actually how the dichotomy is defined, or is this just personal observation?

Personal observation especially coincidence with Gulenko's Forms of Thinking and the differences that manifest between static and dynamic types. I tend to look at static result types as positive reinforcement, dynamic result as negative punishment, static process as positive punishment, and dynamic process as negative reinforcement.

[krieger]

Your thinking is weird. It is hard for me to determine which of my claims you try to counter with each of the sentences you wrote. It creates the impression that you're writing to make up for a lack of valid and relevant things to say.

That is incorrect, all rationals are inescapably very in tune with personal responsibility;

I have not said anything that challenges the image of rationals being responsible people. The topic of responsibility in relation to socionics is quite complex and is best discussed in a thread of it's own.

it is true that as autocrats STs have a lot of agency, but they also have intuitive feeling rather than intuitive thinking, which both manifests in the impetus for agency and simultaneously allows them to step back like any other type; they are not slaves or zombies...

Intuitive feeling is the club that is everything sensory thinking is not, so I hardly see how any skill related to the NF club affects their behavior in more than marginal ways. If you mean STs accept advice from their NF duals and activity partners then that view confirms exactly what I've been saying. They delegate the big-picture stuff to others.

what you said about LIE and investment is very subjective, but you are correct about the capitalist mentality...my uncle is SLI and he behaves just like this; however, it is the ISTjs that are easily distracted and it is because they are feeling, thinking, and sensing, but not intuitive (for example, Homer Simpson);

Homer Simpson is not clearly LSI according to any respectable benchmark and would make a terrible example of any type due to how he is fictional and weird to the point of not being comparable to any real life person. The weakness in intuition and Ne, if anything, sooner signifies a lack of distractablity than a presence of it.

lack of particularly makes it hard for an LSI to come up with good uses for things though as deciding types they can be very resourceful when they have to be when a real decision is necessary. Neither LSI nor SLI are very good at seeing ahead, as carefree types. SLI is a dynamic result type, so perhaps that is what gives rise to the spontaneous emergence of methodology that you described.

I don't see how any of this relates to what I've said so far and don't recall ever describing anything along the lines of a spontaneous emergence of methodology.

[Nexus]

Your thinking is weird. It is hard for me to determine which of my claims you try to counter with each of the sentences you wrote. It creates the impression that you're writing to make up for a lack of valid and relevant things to say.

I have not said anything that challenges the image of rationals being responsible people. The topic of responsibility in relation to socionics is quite complex and is best discussed in a thread of it's own.

Intuitive feeling is the club that is everything sensory thinking is not, so I hardly see how any skill related to the NF club affects their behavior in more than marginal ways. If you mean STs accept advice from their NF duals and activity partners then that view confirms exactly what I've been saying. They delegate the big-picture stuff to others.

Homer Simpson is not clearly LSI according to any respectable benchmark and would make a terrible example of any type due to how he is fictional and weird to the point of not being comparable to any real life person. The weakness in intuition and Ne, if anything, sooner signifies a lack of distractablity than a presence of it.

I don't see how any of this relates to what I've said so far and don't recall ever describing anything along the lines of a spontaneous emergence of methodology.

1. your definition of distraction is retarded, obviously if one is distracted by something he is very focused on it

2. if you fail to realize how what I said applies to SLI then it is not my problem, continue with your failed socionics

3. since socionics applies only to the fundamental precursors if behavior dealing only with primordial motives and very simple attitudes, socionics is only as complicated as you make it, and since you are LII I'd imagine you would make it quite complex indeed

4. as a retort for your misinterpretation of autocratic IM, I might say that you are devoid of feeling and sense as well, and therefore anything you say is both irrelevant to anything emotionally significant and impossible to comprehend because you can't sense the connection between your brain and mouth

5. perhaps being -creative you were not clear enough in your assertion, I thought you were referring to 'responsibility' when you said 'personal investment', 'feeling of what value', 'sense of prioritization', and mentioned thinking IJ types

6. you are an intuitive, subjectivist, farsighted result type, do I really need to cut and paste what I think physically following your every word in order for you to comprehend it?

[717495]

Also polikujm, you change your type way too often for you to be decisive.

That has nothing to do with that dichotomy, and that line of reasoning especially doesn't back up for Ni dominant types. Maybe you need to read more into the dichotomies like Huitz is saying, if you're interested.

You may also fail to see beyond the psychological boundaries. ILI being my type the longest, but a test of resolution in the psyche, would prove that the type I have chosen is ILI, where as the choices of the few other types is irrelevant to what has, in trend, dominated.

[energystar]

...

[FDG]

Labcoat is of course right, as usual. Huitz is wrong, as usual.

[Nexus]

Labcoat is of course right, as usual. Huitz is wrong, as usual.

haha you listen to your extinguishment...no shit

how is that for ad hominem

[xixi]

1. your definition of distraction is retarded, obviously if one is distracted by something he is very focused on it

a state of distraction is a state of lack-of-focus
'focused' and 'distracted' are antonyms

if one is constantly being distracted by the same thing, that would indicate a subconscious awareness and desire to focus on that thing, but certainly that is not equivalent with being 'very focused on' the thing in question.

[Nexus]

a state of distraction is a state of lack-of-focus
'focused' and 'distracted' are antonyms

if one is constantly being distracted by the same thing, that would indicate a subconscious awareness and desire to focus on that thing, but certainly that is not equivalent with being 'very focused on' the thing in question.

The weakness in intuition and Ne, if anything, sooner signifies a lack of distractablity than a presence of it.

To say that a sensory type is less distractable than an intuitive type is the same as saying that a sensory type is too distracted by one thing. Distraction is totally irrelevant to this distinction. Making a statement of equivalence is not the same as negating another without supporting the claim or deriving the inequivalency. types are static / space-capturing, are dynamic / qualia-experiencing. If you are implying that sensing describes a desire to focus on one thing, then is a static element; otherwise is just as 'distracted' as .

[krieger]

a state of distraction is a state of lack-of-focus
'focused' and 'distracted' are antonyms

Thank you. This captures my understanding of the terms perfectly.

[Nexus]

Thank you. This captures my understanding of the terms perfectly.

yes, subjective, intuitive understanding of phonetic engrams of abstract representations of personal significance...it all depends on which side of the telescope you pop up, but ultimately (/\) what does that mean?

I have found that holographic types are as prone to nomothetic fallacy as objectivist types are to ad hominem

1. I cannot understand what you mean by and distractibility, if you mean is prone to distraction due to the experience of qualia during transition of physical states, perhaps that is what gives you this sensation (which might then apply to all reasoning intuitives), but is a static element, it does not change.

2. If you are going to make a distinction between the types, I would appreciate a well-thought-out derivation based on Jungian dichotomies or IM elements, but not a vague intuitive combination of both...and we both know dictionary definitions do not apply to socionics.

[mu4]

The six I'm most sure of are: Statics, Constructivism, Compliancy, Process, Reasonable, and Democracy, which makes me an ENTp.

If I force myself to choose from every Reinin dichotomy, I still get ENTp.

Switch Democracy to Aristocracy leads to EII, which is a suggested type for you by some.

Of the 6 Reinin you're sure about, 5 are shared by both EII and ILE.

[Not A Communist Shill]

Switch Democracy to Aristocracy leads to EII, which is a suggested type for you by some.

Of the 6 Reinin you're sure about, 5 are shared by both EII and ILE.

Yes, I realise that, but the six I'm sure of only gives me ENTp. And with all eleven, I am still ENTp.

[mu4]

Yes, I realise that, but the six I'm sure of only gives me ENTp. And with all eleven, I am still ENTp.

Are you ENTp then?

[Not A Communist Shill]

Are you ENTp then?

I don't believe so.

[mu4]

I don't believe so.

The descriptions are hard to interpret for all the Reinin dichotomies, but Static and Process would make you 4 types EII/ILE/SEE/LSI.

This is one of the rings of supervision.

Static and Compliancy or Constructivism also leads to 4 types ILE/EII/ESI/SLE

Static and Reasonable gives ILE/LII/EII/IEE

Static and Democracy gives ILE/LII/ESI/SEE

I'm not sure what your self typing is these days, but if it's still LII, constructivism/compliancy/process would be different.

I do not think you are ILE either so I think at least one of these dichotomies you're sure about may be a bit uncertain. The descriptions are hard to interpret so I typically try to thought experiment and visualize the implications of what the dichotomy is describing functionally.

Like Static deals with the static/dynamic qualities of the mental/vital functions.
Like Process/Result deals with how information flows within the metabolism.

Reasonable has to do with Si/Ne valuing vs Se/Ni valuing.
Democracy has to do with S blocked with F and N blocked with T vs N blocked with F and S blocked with T.

I haven't thought too much about compliancy and constructivism but I'll get around to it one day.

[Not A Communist Shill]

The dichotomies may be hard to interpret, but I tried to make of them what I could, and taking that into account while judging how easy it was to decide between the two extremes of each dichotomy, I ended up with six I was reasonable sure about. Along with other lines of inquiry I am now open to the possibility that the Reinin dichotomies may simply not correlate so well with the Socionics types...

[mu4]

The dichotomies may be hard to interpret, but I tried to make of them what I could, and taking that into account while judging how easy it was to decide between the two extremes of each dichotomy, I ended up with six I was reasonable sure about. Along with other lines of inquiry I am now open to the possibility that the Reinin dichotomies may simply not correlate so well with the Socionics types...

Well there is no way a LII is process/dynamic/aristocratic/decisive based on how those dichotomies are derived.

The descriptions may be wrong but the basis for what the dichotomy describes, which is some configuration/combination of information elements is associated with the types explicitly.

[Not A Communist Shill]

The descriptions may be wrong but the basis for what the dichotomy describes, which is some configuration/combination of information elements is associated with the types explicitly.

I thought the dichotomies were attributed to each of the Socionics types retrospectively?