Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: Dichotomies - 4 from Jung, 11 from Reinin, thousands to come

  1. #1
    JohnDo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    TIM
    LII-IEI
    Posts
    638
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Dichotomies - 4 from Jung, 11 from Reinin, thousands to come

    There are 6435 possible dichotomies.
    We know 4 from Jung, 11 from Reinin. 6420 to come.
    Any ideas? Picocchio came up with deterministic/indeterministic. Huginn came up with minimizing/maximizing (same types as Process/Result).

    There are also Gulenko's 3 subtype dichotomies (only 2 are necessary):
    contact/distant, connecting/ignoring and ititiating/terminal.
    Are there more dichotomies for possible subtypes?
    Last edited by JohnDo; 03-07-2010 at 12:59 PM.

  2. #2
    crazedrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    moon
    Posts
    4,885
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    This is a meaningless piece of information. There is no magic number of maximum possible functions. We could have an infinite number of functions, the number is only limited by our mental ability to create them..
    INTp

  3. #3
    JohnDo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    TIM
    LII-IEI
    Posts
    638
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Determinist/Non-Determinist (according to Pinocchio):
    - Determinist: ISFx, ENTx, ESTj, INFj, ISTp, ENFp
    - Non-Determinist: INTx, ESFx, INFp, ESTp, ENFj, ISTj

    Determinists:
    - can see you after a long time and talk to you like no time has passed since your previous encounter

    Non-Determinist:
    - if you encounter them after many years they might take you as a stranger, the relationship begins again

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

    At the moment I'm not sure if this dichotomy works or has any practical use...
    An explanation would have to be found in Model A...

  4. #4
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    This is a meaningless piece of information.
    word.

    Stick to Jung, quadras, temperaments and maybe Process/Result.

    edit: Oh and Static/Dynamic, the most powerful of the Reinin dichotomies.
    Last edited by krieger; 03-07-2010 at 04:41 PM.

  5. #5
    Executor MatthewZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    TIM
    Ne-LII
    Posts
    800
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    There's this thing called redundancy.

  6. #6
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    8,337
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I don't even think I care about dichotomies... I mean I know that I'm an INTP in them, but generally speaking its not worth to consume them. Rather, focus on the essence of the information elements and quadra, not their abstract framework of categorizations, that detracts from learning what they are from an observational point of view. Reinin's dichotomies are kind of pointless... I relate to most of the sides he has created, both static and dynamic, ie, both aristocratic and democratic, ie. Not something to obsess over and try to interpret as being so essential to anything Socionics wise. I can obsess over information elements because they are holistic, and I know that for me Ni is of "dominance" through an array of reasons and relations. Saying someone is aristocratic means way less to me than to say they are delta. Delta implies something more specific to theory, something especially more constant, and something typically unmistakeable.

  7. #7
    Crispy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,098
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think additional dichotomies would be more helpful than hindering. If you think your mind is getting polluted then just throw the bad information in the recycle bin.
    ILI (FINAL ANSWER)

  8. #8
    Hello...? somavision's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,474
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Did you reach the total number of dichotomies independantly?
    The thread reminded me of this
    The whole lot of useless nothing

    As these dichomies need to be described and defined linguistically, the more you describe based on theory the greater the likely hood that your ideas diverge from reality.
    IEE-Ne

  9. #9
    Creepy-Cyclops

    Default

    JohnDo, what do you talk about to people in real life?

  10. #10
    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 JohnDo View Post
    There are 6435 possible dichotomies.
    We know 4 from Jung, 11 from Reinin. 6420 to come.
    Any ideas? Picocchio came up with deterministic/indeterministic. Huginn came up with minimizing/maximizing (same types as Process/Result).

    There are also Gulenko's 3 subtype dichotomies (only 2 are necessary):
    contact/distant, connecting/ignoring and ititiating/terminal.
    Are there more dichotomies for possible subtypes?
    This is, incidentally, Sergei Ganin's argument against the Reinin dichotomies: there are thousands of dichotomies, what's so great about those eleven?

    The answer is, the mathematical pattern from which they arise. Most of those other dichotomies are probably not meaningful... if you can't derive them from structure, as has been done wiht the Reinin dichotomies, then you have to start at ground level in demonstrating that they're significant.

    Anyhow, I can think of 32767 dichotomies. (I'm including the ones not evenly split 8:8.)

    Er... subtypes? Including subtypes (for a total of 32 types), there are now 2147483647 dichotomies, including imbalanced ones.



    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

  11. #11
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,632
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Reinin dichotomies are orthogonal, you can't obtain any of them by a combination of any other two. This is not valid for any other kind of dichotomy.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  12. #12
    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 JohnDo View Post
    Determinist/Non-Determinist (according to Pinocchio):
    - Determinist: ISFx, ENTx, ESTj, INFj, ISTp, ENFp
    - Non-Determinist: INTx, ESFx, INFp, ESTp, ENFj, ISTj
    Determinist/Non-Determinist = Delta/Beta, or Well-Defined ^ Static in Smilexian terms. However, Smilingeyes never defined this, afaik... it's a full-cycle dichotomy, alternating with the Alpha/Gamma dichotomy (Socially open ^ Static). Though, maybe Smilingeyes defined these simply by defining the quadras...

    So Pinocchio is noting that leanings toward side quadras follow the base function.



    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

  13. #13
    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 FDG View Post
    Reinin dichotomies are orthogonal, you can't obtain any of them by a combination of any other two. This is not valid for any other kind of dichotomy.
    ?

    Feeling ^ (XOR) Merry = Static...

    I get the impression that there's a typo that's changing your meaning (perhaps "can't"?).



    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

  14. #14
    ILE - ENTp 1981slater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Spain
    TIM
    ILE (ENTp)
    Posts
    4,866
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JohnDo View Post
    There are 6435 possible dichotomies.
    We know 4 from Jung, 11 from Reinin. 6420 to come.
    Any ideas?
    I am buying some aspirins
    ILE "Searcher"
    Socionics: ENTp
    DCNH: Dominant --> perhaps Normalizing
    Enneagram: 7w6 "Enthusiast"
    MBTI: ENTJ "Field Marshall" or ENTP "Inventor"
    Astrological sign: Aquarius

    To learn, read. To know, write. To master, teach.

  15. #15
    Creepy-Cyclops

    Default

    I guess what I should say is I don't see the point in creating dichotomies for the sake of it.

    I can type people just fine with standard dichotomies and functions, anything else imo may as well just be personality related and can leave it at that.

  16. #16
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,632
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brilliand View Post
    ?

    Feeling ^ (XOR) Merry = Static...

    I get the impression that there's a typo that's changing your meaning (perhaps "can't"?).
    I didn't mean to include Feeling in the Reinin, only the non-Jungian eleven. What I exactly mean is: you can't create a third non-jungian reinin dichtomy by mixing other two non-jungian reinin dichotomies (ex. serious and aristocratic defines only 1/2 of judicious types, and so on). This isn't generally valid for any plausible dichotomy. (this was one of the problems encountered by Huggin when defining her minimizing/maximizing, and by JohnDo when "discovering" the dual-pairwise and dual-non-pairwise dichotomies)
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  17. #17
    I had words here once, but I didn't feed them Khola's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    TIM
    ESE
    Posts
    3,535
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by crazedratXII View Post
    This is a meaningless piece of information. There is no magic number of maximum possible functions. We could have an infinite number of functions, the number is only limited by our mental ability to create them..
    Oh come, come now. OBVIOUSLY the magic number is 42.
    Hello, my name is Bee. Pleased to meet you .



  18. #18
    ILE - ENTp 1981slater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Spain
    TIM
    ILE (ENTp)
    Posts
    4,866
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Khola View Post
    Oh come, come now. OBVIOUSLY the magic number is 42.
    Magic number is 32

    ILE "Searcher"
    Socionics: ENTp
    DCNH: Dominant --> perhaps Normalizing
    Enneagram: 7w6 "Enthusiast"
    MBTI: ENTJ "Field Marshall" or ENTP "Inventor"
    Astrological sign: Aquarius

    To learn, read. To know, write. To master, teach.

  19. #19
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The reason I like Static/Dynamic is because it allows functions to be understood in terms of dichotomies.

    When you try to understand what Ne is apart from "intuition", the introvert/extrovert quality of functions doesn't help very much. To "perceive into" the function in some kind of intuitive way to determine that said "function" is "extroverted" is a really dubious approach. After all functions can not be directly seen, only people. Instead one needs to explain "possession of Ne" in terms of the combination of "being intuitive" and some other property of the person. In this case that property is Static: the property that is theoretically explained as having introversion distributed to one's J functions and extroversion to one's P functions. This means that identifying Ne is essentially the same thing as determining that the person is intuitive and Static. A lot of people already use Static/Dynamic in that way, but don't realize it. When people ask me to explain how Static/Dynamic can be detected, I should return the question: how do you do this magical thing where you determine that a function is extroverted? If anyone ever managed to answer that question to themselves they'd find out the process of identifying Static/Dynamic occurs at an intermediate stage!

    edit.

    Let me explain in a different way. Suppose a person has the belief that they can somehow determine that "a person's perceiving ego function is extroverted". They might explain it in terms of "determining that the person has an active spontaneous way of relating concepts" or something like that. Now socionics dictates that this kind of mentality would necessarily be accompanied by that of "having judging ego functions that are introverted". This quality they might explain as "the person has systematic beliefs that can be explained in terms of the relation to other such beliefs". But the fact that these two mentalities always appear together makes them one and the same. Calling the mentality "Static" instead, and always mentioning the two together is efficient and logical thing to do. It doesn't cause any kind of reduction of explanatory ability. It simply mentions the two in one go.

    edit.

    One more thing: saying a person "has extroverted perceiving functions" instead of the person "is Static" is like saying "the house is above averagely warm" when it is really on fire. It mentions a minor part of the truth when the real gist of the matter is something more encompassing.
    Last edited by krieger; 03-08-2010 at 03:07 PM.

  20. #20
    JohnDo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    TIM
    LII-IEI
    Posts
    638
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by somavision View Post
    Did you reach the total number of dichotomies independantly?
    The thread reminded me of this
    The whole lot of useless nothing
    I read Ganin's article and thought it might be a good idea to search for some more dichotomies...

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops
    JohnDo, what do you talk about to people in real life?
    Formula 1, politics, philosophy, everyday occurences... Why do you ask?

    Quote Originally Posted by Brilliand
    The answer is, the mathematical pattern from which they arise. Most of those other dichotomies are probably not meaningful... if you can't derive them from structure, as has been done wiht the Reinin dichotomies, then you have to start at ground level in demonstrating that they're significant.
    Yeah, that is interesting. I'm a student of mathematics but it is not really obvious why Reinin's approach leads to significant dichotomies - at least Ganin and DeLong don't understand why these 11 dichotomies are more important than thousand other...

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

    Default

    It's abominable that Reinin's name is being associated with these dichotomies at all, really. All he ever did was suggest names for a set of groups that are incredibly obvious candidates for trait detection. Anyone who thinks mathematics has anything to do with the dichotomies (or socionics) is blatantly missing the point.

  22. #22
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    7,966
    Mentioned
    568 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post
    The reason I like Static/Dynamic is because it allows functions to be understood in terms of dichotomies.

    When you try to understand what Ne is apart from "intuition", the introvert/extrovert quality of functions doesn't help very much. To "perceive into" the function in some kind of intuitive way to determine that said "function" is "extroverted" is a really dubious approach. After all functions can not be directly seen, only people. Instead one needs to explain "possession of Ne" in terms of the combination of "being intuitive" and some other property of the person. In this case that property is Static: the property that is theoretically explained as having introversion distributed to one's J functions and extroversion to one's P functions. This means that identifying Ne is essentially the same thing as determining that the person is intuitive and Static. A lot of people already use Static/Dynamic in that way, but don't realize it. When people ask me to explain how Static/Dynamic can be detected, I should return the question: how do you do this magical thing where you determine that a function is extroverted? If anyone ever managed to answer that question to themselves they'd find out the process of identifying Static/Dynamic occurs at an intermediate stage!

    edit.

    Let me explain in a different way. Suppose a person has the belief that they can somehow determine that "a person's perceiving ego function is extroverted". They might explain it in terms of "determining that the person has an active spontaneous way of relating concepts" or something like that. Now socionics dictates that this kind of mentality would necessarily be accompanied by that of "having judging ego functions that are introverted". This quality they might explain as "the person has systematic beliefs that can be explained in terms of the relation to other such beliefs". But the fact that these two mentalities always appear together makes them one and the same. Calling the mentality "Static" instead, and always mentioning the two together is efficient and logical thing to do. It doesn't cause any kind of reduction of explanatory ability. It simply mentions the two in one go.

    edit.

    One more thing: saying a person "has extroverted perceiving functions" instead of the person "is Static" is like saying "the house is above averagely warm" when it is really on fire. It mentions a minor part of the truth when the real gist of the matter is something more encompassing.
    I think Static and Dynamic information elements look at the same things from opposing angles. They are the opposite side of the same coin.

    Ne = Internal Static Object
    Si = External Dynamic Field

    Si and Ne are mirrored functions and the information concatenation produces a more complete informational module. Essentially this is how duality form because information concatenation between two duals produces and preserves a more complete informational module like creating a chemical bond between molecules.

    As far as maximum number of dichotomies, this is a factor of how much functional resolution we have. Right now we're at 4 bit system which limits the descriptive combination.

Posting Permissions

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