Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Reinin dichotomies - Why do they have so misleading names?!

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

    Default Reinin dichotomies - Why do they have so misleading names?!

    In my opinion the main reason for the fact that Reinin dichotmies are often considered useless is that they are misunderstood. Is it because of the definitions? Probably not...

    When I studied Reinin dichotomies the first time I thought they were complete nonsense.

    How can an INTj be called "merry"? Most INTjs rather appear to be melancholic...
    Or an ENFj "carefree"? They worry so much...
    Or an ISTp "strategic"? They don't even plan, they just say "let's go"...
    Or an ESTj "yielding"? ESTJs believe that erveryone has to dance to their tune...

    All of it sounds ridiculous...

    Some months later I studied Reinin dichotomies again - and my opinion didn't change. I still didn't understand how Reinin could create crap like that...

    Today I am of the opinion that all Reinin dichotomies are very useful - but we should try to find better names for them. Most people who read about them for the first time will definitely consider them bullshit just because of their inappropriate names...

    Appropriate names:
    Static / Dynamic
    Constructivist / Emotivist
    Positivist / Negativist
    Judicious / Decisive
    Asking / Declaring

    Inappropriate names:
    Carefree / Farsighted -> Situational / Experiential
    Yielding / Obstinate -> Ressource-protecting / Interest-protecting
    Tactical / Strategic -> Methodical / Targeted
    Democratic / Aristocratic -> Individualist / Collectivist
    Merry / Serious -> Subjectivist / Objectivist
    Process / Result -> One-track / Multitasking

    According to this poll Carefree/Farsighted, Yielding/Obstinate and Tactical/Strategic are the only dichotomies used by less than 33%. I think it is primarily because of their misleading names...

    An ESTJ is not "yielding" but resource-protecting. An ENFj is not "carefree" but situational. An ISTp ist not "strategic" but targeted.
    Last edited by JohnDo; 04-16-2010 at 03:52 PM.

  2. #2
    ._. Aiss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    TIM
    IEI
    Posts
    2,015
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JohnDo View Post
    In my opinion the main reason for the fact that Reinin dichotmies are often considered useless is that they are misunderstood. Is it because of the definitions? Probably not...
    Names don't fit very well, but neither do a lot of descriptions. The idea that there may be a dichotomy which divides types this way is plausible, but there are points that contradict Jungian dichotomies (esp. rationality/irrationality), or simply make no sense for some types (like ILIs preferring large groups of people).

    To be honest Reinin dichotomies seem to me like an unfinished idea. As if the dichotomies names and descriptions were based on a few characteristic types of each one, without bothering to check them in all combinations. Nothing against unfinished ideas and drafts, most of mine never get past this stage, but this one has been published and is actually used.

    When I studied Reinin dichotomies the first time I thought they were complete nonsense.

    How can an INTj be called "merry"? Most INTjs rather appear to be melancholic...
    Or an ENFj "carefree"? They worry so much...
    Or an ISTp "strategic"? They don't even plan, they just say "let's go"...
    Or an ESTj "yielding"? ESTJs believe that erveryone has to dance to their tune...

    All of it sounds ridiculous...

    Some months later I studied Reinin dichotomies again - and my opinion didn't change. I still didn't understand how Reinin could create crap like that...

    Today I am of the opinion that all Reinin dichotomies are very useful - but we should try to find better names for them. Most people who read about them for the first time will definitely consider them bullshit just because of their inappropriate names...

    Appropriate names:
    Static / Dynamic
    Constructivist / Emotivist
    Positivist / Negativist
    Judicious / Decisive
    Asking / Declaring

    Inappropriate names:
    Carefree / Farsighted -> Situational / Experiential
    Yielding / Obstinate -> Ressource-protecting / Interest-protecting
    Tactical / Strategic -> Methodical / Targeted
    Democratic / Aristocratic -> Individualist / Collectivist
    Merry / Serious -> Subjectivist / Objectivist
    Process / Result -> One-track / Multitasking

    According to this poll Carefree/Farsighted, Yielding/Obstinate and Tactical/Strategic are the only dichotomies used by less than 33%. I think it is primarily because of their misleading names...

    An ESTJ is not "yielding" but resource-protecting. An ENFj is not "carefree" but situational. An ISTp ist not "strategic" but targeted.
    Democratic/aristocratic is one of the few that have the right names, I think. What about IEEs being negativist? Also judicious/decisive - it has a lot in common with rationality/irrationality, enough to make little sense for judicious rationals and decisive irrationals.

    I don't like your names better, to be honest. They focus on a single aspect, quite possibly important one, but most of them sounds... meh. One-track? Seriously?

  3. #3
    The Looks stanprollyright's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    In your pants
    TIM
    IEE-Ne cp 6w7 sx/so
    Posts
    555
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    My first guess is that the names are translated from Russian
    Stan is not my real name.

  4. #4
    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 stanprollyright
    My first guess is that the names are translated from Russian
    That is true. Either the translations are bad - or Reinin introduced inappropriate names...

    Quote Originally Posted by Aiss View Post
    To be honest Reinin dichotomies seem to me like an unfinished idea.
    Yeah, let's finish it...

    Quote Originally Posted by Aiss View Post
    Democratic/aristocratic is one of the few that have the right names, I think.
    Maybe. First I listed it under "appropriate names" but are Deltas really "aristocratic"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Aiss View Post
    What about IEEs being negativist?
    IEEs are often optimistic but they tend to stress the things that do not work yet. Negativistic optimists...

    Quote Originally Posted by Aiss View Post
    Also judicious/decisive - it has a lot in common with rationality/irrationality, enough to make little sense for judicious rationals and decisive irrationals.
    peaceloving / success-oriented might be better

    Quote Originally Posted by Aiss View Post
    I don't like your names better, to be honest. They focus on a single aspect, quite possibly important one, but most of them sounds... meh. One-track? Seriously?
    Well, I'm not a native speaker so I don't know how it sounds. The problem with the name process/result is that it might be confused with tactical/strategic. The German word I would use for Process is "eingleisig" - and the online dictionary I use says "eingleisig: one-track"...

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

    Default

    Great post Johndo, this is the main flaw of reinin

  6. #6
    ._. Aiss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    TIM
    IEI
    Posts
    2,015
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JohnDo View Post
    Maybe. First I listed it under "appropriate names" but are Deltas really "aristocratic"?
    I find that theoretical explanation from wiki works for this, although it's far more obvious in case of Beta/Gamma. What this dichotomy does is practically grouping NT + SF, and NF + ST. It's basically to what logical and ethical structures are being applied - to abstract (N) or real (S).

    A possible explanation for this trait regarding group thinking goes as follows. Aristocratic reasoning merely structures logically () characteristics they have observed () in several individuals, being thus a logical "connecting of the dots" applied to people. From a purely logical perspective applied to perceptions and goals, it makes perfect sense to assume that, if you perceive an individual as belonging to a group posssessing some traits you have already concluded are characteristic of that group, said individual will exhibit those traits. For example, if in your experience so far () all persons belonging to a particular division in a company have been unhelpful, it makes sense to conclude logically () in a purely impersonal way that that is a characteristic of that division, and extrapolate that to further persons from that group. From the point of view of primitive societies or situations of non-organized warfare and conflict, such a reasoning may even be crucial for survival since it allows you to estimate who your enemies are before they attack you.

    By contrast, the Democratic reasoning focuses on observations on a case-by-case basis, that is of the individual they happen to be interacting with at the moment (). A focus on does not lead to creating logical structures, but to forming stable connections to persons on individual-to-indvidual basis, and in that case there is no point to, and no inclination for, considerations of whether the observed reality of the person fits into a broader logical structure of a group ().

    This explanation seems more obvious in connection to the Beta quadra; far less so in the case of Delta since the + block is subdued. Another way of explaining this for Delta might be through the + block; on the basis that the realization of someone's potential () is realized via connections with others (), and that one of Delta's characteristics is the formation of groups towards worthy and productive goals.

    Anyway, individualistic/collectivist don't even come close. The point isn't "alone or in a group".

    Well, I'm not a native speaker so I don't know how it sounds. The problem with the name process/result is that it might be confused with tactical/strategic. The German word I would use for Process is "eingleisig" - and the online dictionary I use says "eingleisig: one-track"...
    Neither am I, but having a one-track mind doesn't really convey this dichotomy's meaning.

  7. #7
    Executor MatthewZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    TIM
    Ne-LII
    Posts
    800
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    This is why some things(erotic attitudes, for instance) shouldn't be translated literally from Russian.

Posting Permissions

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