Reinin dichotomies - neither "dead" (DeLong) nor "useles nothing"!

[JohnDo]

Links:
The Reinin dichotomies are dead - Rick DeLong
The whole lot of useless nothing - Sergei Ganin

When I first studied Reinin dichotomies I read what DeLong and Ganin thought about them and considered them useless crap (not Ganin and Delong but Reinin dichotomies, of course ).

But I completely changed my mind: Reinin dichotomies are actually very useful. They are great to explain the concept of duality for example.

Reinin dichotomies can be divided in "Course of Action" and "Attitude to Life".

Course of Action:
- tactical/strategic
- static/dynamic
- emotivistic/constructivist
- positivist/negativistic
- asking/declaring

Attitude to Life:
- yielding/obstinate
- carefree/farsighted
- process/result
- democratic/aristocratic
- serious/merry
- reasonable/resolute

Very interesting: Duals share all dichotomies concerning Attitude to Life - and they differ in all dichotomies concerning Course of Action!!
I'm not quite sure if this is the result of my own analysis or if I read this distinction somewhere before - but it is definitely extremely interesting I think!

Example:

As an LII I prefer the following course of action:
- I rather think about goals than about methods (strategic)
- I like to talk about properties and structures (static).
- I try to understand the psychological state of others first (emotivist).
- I rather want to hear the opinions of others (asking).
- I tend to mention things that don't work properly (negativist).

My ESFj duals prefer a completely different course of action:
- They rather think about methods than about goals (tactical)
- They like to talk about developments (dynamic).
- They try to help without trying to understand everything (constructivist).
- They rather want to demonstrate their own opinions (declaring).
- They tend to mention things that already work properly (positivist).

While the Course of Action is completely different the Attitude to Life is exactly the same: INTj and ESFj both
- focus on ideas instead of ressources (obstinate)
- focus on long-term goals instead of short-term goals (farsighted)
- focus on results instead of processes (result)
- prefer ideology instead of opportunism (merry)
- prefer equality instead of superiority (democratic)
- prefer peace instead of success (reasonable)

After my analysis I really can't see how the Reinin dichotomies are "dead" or "useless nothing". I think they are great...

[Krig the Viking]

Neat!

I don't have much else to say other than that. That's a nifty classification of the dichotomies, and the Duality correlation is pretty cool.

[Brilliand]

Very interesting: Duals share all dichotomies concerning Attitude to Life - and they differ in all dichotomies concerning Course of Action!!
I'm not quite sure if this is the result of my own analysis or if I read this distinction somewhere before - but it is definitely extremely interesting I think!

This is a consequence of definitions - the "attitude to life" dichotomies are called that because you share them with your dual, and the "course of action" dichotomies are called that because you don't share them with your dual. Basically, I think you're getting excited about a tautology.

[JohnDo]

Neat!

I don't have much else to say other than that. That's a nifty classification of the dichotomies, and the Duality correlation is pretty cool.

Thanks. So you are also of the opinion that Reinin dichotomies are great?

I'm just waiting for Gammas who will certainly say that I am over-simplifying things again...

This is a consequence of definitions - the "attitude to life" dichotomies are called that because you share them with your dual, and the "course of action" dichotomies are called that because you don't share them with your dual. Basically, I think you're getting excited about a tautology.

Where did you read about that distinction?
To be honest, I just can't remember if I invented it or read it somewhere

[Krig the Viking]

This is a consequence of definitions - the "attitude to life" dichotomies are called that because you share them with your dual, and the "course of action" dichotomies are called that because you don't share them with your dual. Basically, I think you're getting excited about a tautology.

That's what I thought at first, too, but I think he came up with these categories first, and then realized the correlation with Duality afterward.

Thanks. So you are also of the opinion that Reinin dichotomies are great?

Well, some of them are more useful than others.

[Brilliand]

Where did you read about that distinction?

I think I thought of it during some discussion on this forum way back when...

Anyhow, that distinction seems to follow from noticing that some dichotomies correlate with duality and some do not (and that duals share values but not strengths/weaknesses). How would you derive that distinction? Some of the phrases you use to describe the dichotomies in the OP seem like they could be easily reworded to fit in the opposite category, so that distinction can't be derived from the dichotomy descriptions. Element-position-based definitions will, inevitably, mechanically equate to a Model A approach (=duality) that says nothing about how good the Reinin dichotomies are.

[JohnDo]

That's what I thought at first, too, but I think he came up with these categories first, and then realized the correlation with Duality afterward.

Exactly. I wanted to categorize them in "communication", "behaviour", "attitude to life" - and eventually realized that duals differ in all "communication" and "behaviour" dichotomies but share all "attitude to life" dichotomies.

Well, some of them are more useful than others.

Yes, the dichotomies concerning "Attitude to Life" are much more important I think...

[stanprollyright]

Good thread. I've got a pretty middle view on Reinins. I don't think they're useless or especially fantastic either.

[FDG]

Well, nothing new under the sun.

[JohnDo]

Anyhow, that distinction seems to follow from noticing that some dichotomies correlate with duality and some do not (and that duals share values but not strengths/weaknesses). How would you derive that distinction?

Well, just by analyzing the dichotomies and deciding if they are about course of action ("How are we going to handle that?") or about attitude to life ("What is more important for us?")

Examples:
1.) The reason for being strategic is not that I think being strategic is a better way of life. Being tactical is certainly as good as being strategic. I'm just what I am. So this dichotomy is definitely not about attitude to life but about course of action.
2.) Yielding/obstinate is clearly about attitude to life: Do you rather fight for ideas (obstinate) or for ressources (yielding)?

Some of the phrases you use to describe the dichotomies in the OP seem like they could be easily reworded to fit in the opposite category, so that distinction can't be derived from the dichotomy descriptions.

Which dichotomies do you mean? Most pretty clearly belong to one category I think...

Element-position-based definitions will, inevitably, mechanically equate to a Model A approach (=duality) that says nothing about how good the Reinin dichotomies are.

I disagree. If the Reinin dichotomies exactly explain why duality is the best relation - then they are certainly a great instrument to explain many other problems...

Well, nothing new under the sun.

What?
May I ask, where did you read about this distinction before?

[FDG]

It's as Brilland says; everybody knew that some dichotomies are shared by duals, and some aren't.

[JohnDo]

It's as Brilland says; everybody knew that some dichotomies are shared by duals, and some aren't.

Of course everybody knew that. What people like Rick DeLong or Sergei Ganin don't seem to know - you can precisely explain why duality is a good relation or quasi-identity is a bad one by using Reinin dichotomies. So they are neither "dead" (DeLong) nor "useless" (Ganin)...

[FDG]

Oh yeah, I agree. I guess Rick and Ganin think that they over-complicate the approach, especially for newcomers. Since their websites are mostly aimed at newcomers, it makes sense that they'd endorse such position.

[thePirate]

good post john, you categorized the dichotomies nicely.

personally, I found this post helpful. here is some Fe

[JohnDo]

good post john, you categorized the dichotomies nicely.

personally, I found this post helpful. here is some Fe

You changed your self-typing again? What about some pictures for V.I.?

[Creepy-Cyclops]

The asking declaring dichotomy plays out perfectly with the interaction between an IEE-LSE I know.

[thePirate]

You changed your self-typing again? What about some pictures for V.I.?

IEI is my only self typing

ENFp - Phaedrus
ENFj - various members of the board

pictures are irrelevant at this point, I am certain of my type.

[Jarno]

Reinin dichotomies can be divided in "Course of Action" and "Attitude to Life".

Course of Action:
- tactical/strategic
- static/dynamic
- emotivistic/constructivist
- positivist/negativistic
- asking/declaring

Attitude to Life:
- yielding/obstinate
- carefree/farsighted
- process/result
- democratic/aristocratic
- serious/merry
- reasonable/resolute

can you explain what makes a dichotomie a 'course of action' what makes it 'attitude of life'?

edit: I see the question is already answered. gonna read it now...

[1981slater]

More data:

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...red-chart.html

[JohnDo]

Let's calculate the quality of different relations by using Reinin dichotomies...

Merry/serious, judicious/decisive and democratic/aristocratic seem to be the most important dichotomies. 3 points for commonality.

Carefree/farsighted, yielding/obstinate and process/result seem to be important, too. 2 points for commonality.

The other dichotomies are not so important and people should differ from each other. 1 point for disparity.

INTj-ESFj: 3*3+2*3+5 = 20
INTj-INTj: 3*3+2*3+0 = 15
INTj-ENTp: 3*3+2*0+3= 12
INTj-ISFp: 3*3+2*0+2 = 11
INTj-INTp: 3*1+2*2+4 = 11 --- unexpected. strange result for quasi-identity...
INTj-ISTp: 3*1+2*2+3 = 10 ---benefit. quite good...
INTj-INFp: 3*1+2*2+3 = 10 ---benefit. quite good...
INTj-ENFp: 3*1+2*2+2 = 9 --- supervision. quite good...
INTj-ESTp: 3*1+2*2+2 = 9 --- supervision. quite good...
INTj-INFj: 3*1+2*1+3 = 8
INTj-ISTj: 3*1+2*1+3 = 8
INTj-ENTj: 3*1+2*1+3 = 8
INTj-ESFp: 3*1+2*2+1 = 8
INTj-ISFj: 3*1+2*1+2 = 7
INTj-ESTj: 3*1+2*1+2 = 7 --- what I expected. Some even think of illusion as a good relation...
INTj-ENFj: 3*1+2*1+2 = 7 --- what I expected. Some even think of semi-duality as a good relation

[Brilliand]

INTj-ESTj: 3*1+2*1+2 = 7 --- what I expected. Some even think of illusion as a good relation...
INTj-ENFj: 3*1+2*1+2 = 7 --- what I expected. Some even think of semi-duality as a good relation

These are good relations... you're giving Democratic/Aristocratic too much credit.

My formula:
(2 points for differing on Sensing/Intuition+2 points for differing on Thinking/Feeling-1)*(1 point for differing on Static/Dynamic, -1 for matching on Static/Dynamic)+(1 point for matching on Rational/Irrational)

INTj-ESFj: 3*1+1 = 4
INTj-ISFp: 3*1+0 = 3
INTj-INTj: -1*-1+1 = 2
INTj-ESTj: 1*1+1=2
INTj-ENFj: 1*1+1=2
INTj-ENTp: -1*-1+0= 1
INTj-ISTp: 1*1+0 = 1
INTj-INFp: 1*1+0=1
==Halfway point (0.5)==
INTj-INFj: 1*-1+1=0
INTj-ISTj: 1*-1+1=0
INTj-ENTj: -1*1+1=0
INTj-INTp: -1*1+0=-1
INTj-ENFp: 1*-1+0=-1
INTj-ESTp: 1*-1+0=-1
INTj-ISFj: 3*-1+1=-2
INTj-ESFp: 3*-1+0=-3

Let's see if I can form an equivalent formula that's more directly a point sum...

• 2 points for matching on Judicious/Decisive, -2 for matching on Static/Dynamic
• 2 points for matching on Merry/Serious, -2 for matching on Static/Dynamic
• +2 for matching on Static/Dynamic, -1 for no reason
• 1 point for matching on Rational/Irrational

Equals...

• 2 points for matching on Judicious/Decisive
• 2 points for matching on Merry/Serious
• -2 for matching on Static/Dynamic
• 1 point for matching on Rational/Irrational
• -1 point for no reason

Normalizing it to a minimum of 0...

• 2 for matching on Judicious/Decisive
• 2 for matching on Merry/Serious
• 2 for differing on Static/Dynamic
• 1 for matching on Rational/Irrational

Yeah, I only used a few dichotomies. Oh well... In addition to my note about overemphasizing Democratic/Aristocratic, I suggest raising the value of differing on the non-duality dichotomies. Of course, you can't take that idea to its logical extreme of "all dichotomies have equal value" because for mathematical reasons, all relationships but duality would score exactly the same.

P.S.: I wonder what your formula would look like mathematically simplified? I won't do it right now - not enough time to spare - but I'm sure it could be simplified to use very few dichotomies without changing the assigned scores.

[Jarno]

I like you guys.

[Brilliand]

I like you guys.

Is this supposed to be a point about quasi-identical relationships?

[FDG]

Formulae for relationships...that's a good way to tell Ti from Fi!

[krieger]

Merry/serious, judicious/decisive and democratic/aristocratic seem to be the most important dichotomies. 3 points for commonality.

These are good relations... you're giving Democratic/Aristocratic too much credit.

JohnDo's view is apparently that types in the opposite quadra aren't less compatible than types in adjacent quadras. This strikes me as dubious given how negatively Conflict relations tend to be described. IMO, Merry/Serious, Judicious/Decisive and Rational/Irrational are the dichotomies to look for, the last of which accounts for the fact that duals are better than activities, and super-egos are better than conflictors.

[Krig the Viking]

I came up with a formula quite a while ago:

Identical on Rationality +1
Different on Rationality +0
Identical on Judicious/Decisive +2
Different on Judicious/Decisive (Super-Ego) -1
Different on Judicious/Decisive (Id) -0
Identical on Merry/Serious +2
Different on Merry/Serious (Super-Ego) -1
Different on Merry/Serious (Id) -0

I also divided them into "Attractive relations" and "Repulsive relations" categories (i.e., "Different on Static/Dynamic" and "Identical on Static/Dynamic"), since it seemed to me that Attractive and Repulsive relations are too different to really compare one to one.

My results:

Attractive relations:
Duality 1+2+2=5
Activation 0+2+2=4
Semi-Duality 1-0+2=3
Mirage 1+2-0=3
Benefit 0-0+2=2
Benefit 0+2-0=2
Contrary 1-0-0=1
Quasi-Identical 0-0-0=0

Repulsive Relations
Identical 1+2+2=5
Mirror 0+2+2=5
Kindred 1-1+2=2
Business 1+2-1=2
Supervision 0+2-1=1
Supervision 0-1+2=1
Super-Ego 1-1-1=-1
Conflict 0-1-1=-2

So that's the one I've been using up until now. But I just thought of a different way to calculate it, based on Model A instead of dichotomies:

Base-Suggestive Match +4
Base-Mobilizing Match +3
Base-Base Match +2
Base-Creative Match +1
Base-Ignoring Match -1
Base-Demonstrative Match -2
Base-Role Match -3
Base-Vulnerable Match -4

Creative-Mobilizing Match +4
Creative-Suggestive Match +3
Creative-Creative Match +2
Creative-Base Match +1
Creative-Demonstrative Match -1
Creative-Ignoring Match -2
Creative-Vulnerable Match -3
Creative-Role Match -4

Results:
Duality = 8

Activation = 6

Identical = 4
Semi-Duality = 3
Mirage = 3

Mirror = 2
Benefactor = 1
Beneficiary = 1

Kindred = -1
Business = -1
Contrary = -2

Supervisor = -3
Supervisee = -3
Quasi-Identical = -4

Super-Ego = -6

Conflict = -8

I was surprised to see Mirage and Semi-Duality come in ahead of Mirror, and Contrary come in ahead of Supervision, but I guess it makes sense in a weird way. You may be able to empathize with your Mirror, but they can be hard to communicate with at time, and meanwhile Mirage and Semi-Duality tickle your Super-Id. And Supervision may have really good understanding, but the Supervisor always has to walk on eggshells to avoid hitting the Supervisee's Vulnerable function, and on the other hand, Contrary may be boring as heck, but no-one has to worry about accidentally hitting the other's Vulnerabilities.

I think subtypes would have an effect on this, as well. Not sure how to calculate that, though.

[JohnDo]

That's why Rick DeLong doesn't like Reinin dichotomies. Ti-excess...

People who are Ti-vulnerable can't stand calculations like that...

[Creepy-Cyclops]

That's why Rick DeLong doesn't like Reinin dichotomies. Ti-excess...

People who are Ti-vulnerable can't stand calculations like that...

Personally, when I see that stuff, I just zone out and don't think the effort to understand it is equivalent to the benefit I could extract.

[Jarno]

Personally, when I see that stuff, I just zone out and don't think the effort to understand it is equivalent to the benefit I could extract.

That is very nice formulated cyclops. I have this same kind of experience when looking at those things. Something like, wow interesting and then I zone out.

We both have Ti as eight function and a similar respons to seeing Ti stuff. Interesting...

[krieger]

That's why Rick DeLong doesn't like Reinin dichotomies. Ti-excess...

People who are Ti-vulnerable can't stand calculations like that...

The main reason for his dislike is probably the fact that there are simply a lot of bullshit claims about Reinin circulating in communities like these. Imo his judgment is very sensible in this regard.

[Brilliand]

That's why Rick DeLong doesn't like Reinin dichotomies. Ti-excess...

People who are Ti-vulnerable can't stand calculations like that...

And Ganin? I recall he was typed LII...

[JohnDo]

And Ganin? I recall he was typed LII...

He probably didn't study them carefully. I'm of the opinion that they are very useful to explain certain things that have nothing to do with Model A.

It is very interesting that both ISTj and ENFp are "declaring" for example. Everyone who pays attention will confirm that. They really get angry when being interrupted while speaking. They don't ask many questions, either. Model A would never offer this insight... Fascinating...

Same goes for process/result. I always wondered why both my ISTj father and my ENFj mother completely fail when it comes to multi-tasking. Model A does not explain that. Fascinating...

[mu4]

Results:
Duality = 8

Activation = 6

Identical = 4
Semi-Duality = 3
Mirage = 3

Mirror = 2
Benefactor = 1
Beneficiary = 1

Kindred = -1
Business = -1
Contrary = -2

Supervisor = -3
Supervisee = -3
Quasi-Identical = -4

Super-Ego = -6

Conflict = -8

I think this is perhaps wrong in some area, because Benefit(more then all but duality or activation) and Supervision(same as mirror) marriages are supposed to be more common based on some empirical studies.

Of all marriages, a large majority was found to be within the same quadra and Benefit/Supervision.

Of course quadra values are important to relationships, but outside quadra values. There are Process-Result and Static-Dynamic.

Process-Result seems to be a important factor, because this dichotomy represents similar direction of information flow within a information metabolism.

Take a ILE and a EIE relationship
Ne-Ti-Se-Fi
Fe-Ni-Te-Si

The benefactor can adopt the role of the EIE Dual using Ti-Se.


Why Static-Dynamic is important to relationships is because information elements are incomplete in this aspect. Static Ne needs Dynamic Si and so on. In a way I view Static functions to be observing similar information as Dynamic functions from different perspectives.

The three most common marriages via the study was Dual/Activation/Benefit which has contrasting Static and Dynamic mental ring functions.

I do not believe Illusion or Semi-dual relations to be good at all, I've found thru my analysis and past experiences these relations are fine for friendship but for intimacy is undesirable.

Conflicting quadra relations work for professional endeavors within same process-result dichotomy. There are many examples of ILI and ILE working on fruitful research together and the like as well as Beta and Delta ST organizers. This is because Clubs occupy the same sphere of activity. Static-Dynamic elements offer a complete picture of information, there is also a rivalry and competition amongst these types which encourages additional effort via the ego function.

However when the process-result dichotomy differ between conflicting quadra types, typically outright conflict is initiated and at best total avoidance is taken.

There are different forms of relations people engage in other then intimate ones, so we should be aware that smooth relations within one sphere may not be adequate in other spheres.

As far as the Reinin dichotomies are. The third tier dichotomies are just inverse first tier dichotomies. Three of the third tier represent commonalities between duals where the first tier represent the differences, while 1 represents commonality between first tier and differences in the third tier.

ILE and SEI are the same in process/result, merry/serious, judicious/decisive, where as they are different in positivism and negativism.

[Ezra]

I find it fascinating that you read both articles and still felt the need for these dichotomies. Did something not go in to your head?

[JohnDo]

I find it fascinating that you read both articles and still felt the need for these dichotomies. Did something not go in to your head?

Yes, something didn't go into my head, indeed:

1.) Aushra Augusta considered Reinin dichotomies a discovery. Was Augusta a less competent socionist than Ganin or DeLong?
2.) 80% of the people on this forum use at least some of them, see this thread.
3.) - Static/dynamic and merry serious are used by more than 50%, see this thread.
- Democratic/aristocratic, constructivist/emotivist, positivist/negativist, reasonable/resolute and process/result are at least used by more than 25% each.
- After studying Reinin dichotomies carefully I even think of carefree/farsighted, obstinate/compliant, tactical/strategic and questioning/declaring as very useful now. It is really fascinating to notice these subtle differences between different types. Model A explains nothing of all that

[krieger]

self-deception - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com

[JohnDo]

self-deception - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com

Very good link. Everyone on this forum should read that.

Nevertheless, I think that Augusta and 80% of the users of this forum (including myself) are less likely to be wrong than Ganin and DeLong...

I even know why some Reinin dichotomies are considered useless by most people:
Carefree/farsighted, obstinate/compliant and tactical/strategic seem to be other words for rational/irrational. Rational types are often described as "farsighted" (they plan ahead), "strategic" (they plan ahead) and "obstinate" (they are stubborn). Irrational types are often described as "carefree" (they don't plan ahead), "tactical" (they don't plan ahead), and compliant ("not as stubborn").

The problem is that Reinin used inappropriate names for these dichotomies!! That's why they are misunderstood and people consider them useless!

Carefree/farsighted has not really to do with planning ahead. Carefree people rather act situationally ("Let's see what works here.") whereas Farsighted people rather rely on their experience ("How did we handle that before?"). A better name for carefree/farsighted would be situationally/experientially.

Tactical/strategic has not really to do with the rational/irrational meaning of "planning ahead or being spontaneous", either. Rational tacticians do plan ahead, irrational strategists not really. Tacticians focus on methods, strategists focus on goals. A better name for tactical/strategic would be method-oriented/goal-oriented.

Obstinate/compliant has not really to do with the rational/irrational meaning of "being stubborn". Obstinate people fight for ideas, compliant people fight for ressources. A better name for obstinate /compliant would be idea-protecting/ressource-protecting.

[Rick]

Very good link. Everyone on this forum should read that.

Nevertheless, I think that Augusta and 80% of the users of this forum (including myself) are less likely to be wrong than Ganin and DeLong...

Augusta presented Reinin's Dichotomies as a hypothesis and stated that they needed further investigation. In contrast with her descriptions of the Jungian Dichomoties and the socionic functions, her descriptions of the Reinin Dichotomies are vague and generally muddled. Most Russian / Ukrainian socionists say that her descriptions weren't very good.

So, was Augusta (well, Reinin actually) "right?" Yes, in the sense that these dichotomies indeed exist mathematically. Whether they exist as actual physical phenomena is another issue. I personally have been unable to see how any of the proposed descriptions I've read can relate to reality. The second problem is that I cannot see how the descriptions follow logically from the socionic model. The third problem is that I do not know of socionists who seem able to consistently apply Reinin Dichotomies in typing and successfully convey their understanding to other people.

All this suggests that trying to make the Reinin Dichotomies work might not be worth many people's time. My perspective is that there is far more to be gained from, say, understanding gender differences than trying to master Reinin Dichotomies. Gender differences have a large body of empirical research, are readily observable, and are far-reaching in their effects. In contrast, the Reinin Dichotomies have a small body of contradictory, non-empirical research, are difficult to observe, and are limited in their explanatory power.

[JohnDo]

I personally have been unable to see how any of the proposed descriptions I've read can relate to reality.

I'm absolutely fascinated by some things I never understood. Some examples:
My parents are ENFj and ISTj.
1.) I never understood why they fail completely when it comes to multi-tasking. Process...
2.) I never understood why they fail when it comes to using experience. Carefree...
3.) I never understood why my father always gets angry when he is inerrupted while speaking. Declaring...

The second problem is that I cannot see how the descriptions follow logically from the socionic model.

True but doesn't matter much to me. The dichotomies might be accurate even if they had nothing to do with Model A...

The third problem is that I do not know of socionists who seem able to consistently apply Reinin Dichotomies in typing and successfully convey their understanding to other people.

Okay, they are not meant to be used for typing... but in my opinion they have a lot of explanatory power...

All this suggests that trying to make the Reinin Dichotomies work might not be worth many people's time.

I agree, people should study all the other stuff first. But after studying functions, elements, relations, type descriptions and subtype systems extensively I got bored and found out that Reinin dichotomies explain some interesting subtleties - which are neither important for typing nor for anything else because Gulenko included the most important traits in his descriptions... Reading Gulenko's type descriptions carefully is an easier way than studying Reinin dichotomies, indeed...

[krieger]

The most curious thing about some of the dichotomies (Carefree/Calc., Obst./Comp. Emo./Const. etc) is that they create the view that Conflictors have a massive number of properties in common. Imo this claim itself is adequate refutation of their worth.