What are the reinin dichotomies for warrior-librarian?

[The Exception]

I know its probably a load of bullshit but I'm curious anyway. I've read the descriptions over on wikisocion and did a self analysis. There were just a few that I was clear on. There were some that contradicted my self-typing and others where I couldn't decide. Overall, it didn't work well for me. I'm highly skeptical but kind of interested anyway.

So I'm putting up a poll because I want to know which Reinin dichotomies you think I most display. Only vote for the ones you feel reasonably sure about. Very important: Do not select an option simply because you know its consistent with my type. The whole idea is to test whether or not Reinin dichotomies have any value or whether its just bullshit.

[717495]

Just to add to your knowledge of people, the reinin dichotomies tell me I'm an ILE. And it even types this girl who I'm pretty sure is my dual an SEI, or if any relationship I've had in my life was good, she would be the one person I would want to be there for the rest of my life. That's kind of one way I look at the LII-ESE relationship for me, since its often tough to say like which mirror you are. So other than that, I don't really know how relevant the reinin dichotomies are.

[717495]

A lot of people on here seem to be sure of one thing for me, thats Ne, and I have heard other people say that I'm obviously Ti and LII. So even if they think I could be an Ne introvert or extrovert, still Ne is Ne. Like gilly for example, if so many people say he's Fe, but no one believes he's an EIE or ESE, that doesnt really make sense, see. I'm not like an extrovert or social or anything. I still think it could be because I'm a more introverted ILE, like one of the more introverted enneagram types, which I'm assuming is possible. And I think ILE works as well because of various descriptions I've read about ILEs. The one thing that bothers me is a lot of ILEs type as ENTP in MBTI, and kind of just switched to this type: and I think that maybe some of those ENTPs arent even ILE but perhaps LII or IEE, or some other type, and have a social flair and vocal silliness about them, and a wide variety of interests and knowledge. This is not something I really believe in extroverts of Socionics. All I know is extrotims of Socionics are focused on "objects," this is basically what aushra said, instead of dominantly trying to grasp field aspects. So all I'm saying is maybe the reinin dichotomies do work sometimes, if so many people think I'm ILE anyway.

So maybe it really is worth finding out your reinin types. And I know I'm being very applicative to myself in my reasoning here, which people say is what introverts do (which doesnt really work for me, even if it does seem a little more Ti lately) All I'm trying to say about you and your type here is through my own thoughts and experience about the typing process, not getting too far into stereotypes that is, you can figure out your type with a few of these more obvious tools.

Some additional type themes that I believe may help you are the following:

This link here, to the main 4 http://socionics.us/theory/dichotomies.shtml (my only fear about this is that the "extended" versions go far too in detail to really divide the dichotomy into solid halves.)


This list here I think was a job well done:

Wikisocion

Si : harmony, pleasure, health, comfort, pleasantness, satisfaction, convenience, quality, cosiness, aesthetics

Ne : potential/possibility, the unique and unusual, ability, essence, perception of the whole, uncertainty, the unknown, search, internal makeup, suddenness, chance, being, permanence, impermanence

Ti : analysis, law, hierarchy, classification, understanding, order, (legal) right, system, structure, formal logic

Fe : emotions and emotional expression, passion, mood, excitation, exuberance, romanticism, imitation, acting

Ni : development over time (processes), cause and effect, history, planning, forecasting, past/future, rhythm, speed, urgency, fantasy

Se : authority, influence, desire, political interest/personal investment, competition/struggle, willpower, impact, force, appearance, readiness, tactics, territory

Fi : like/dislike, decency and niceness, morals, good/evil, etiquette, humanism, attraction/repulsion, sympathy, compassion

Te : benefit, efficiency, action, knowledge, method, mechanism, act, work, motion, reason, technology, fact, expediency, economy

Or if you want to get fancy, try some of the original material itself:

http://www.socionics.us/works/socion2.shtml#1

[717495]

A question I do have though, is even if you get all your reinin dichotomies correct, and you think it types you "wrong," why is it necessarily the dichotomies that are wrong, and not your conception of Socionics, or other normative themes and stereotypes? Maybe the dichotomies are just one conception of Socionics, but your conception of Socionics also seems to be pretty variable lately. Maybe it's time for you to see what one of these more solid theories have in store, like the reinin dichotomies. I personally have sort of worked on these, and have seen some decent correlations to the intertype relations descriptions, which matched up well with people I've typed with these. I'm curious to know what your final type result you've come to with these dichotomies is.

[JohnDo]

I've read the descriptions over on wikisocion and did a self analysis. There were just a few that I was clear on. There were some that contradicted my self-typing and others where I couldn't decide.

I also had this problem when I first read about them. The problem is that many of their names are misleading and the descriptions have to be understood correctly. That certainly takes some weeks or months. If you are just getting interested in Reinin dichotomies it is not unusual that some of them don't seem to fit.

Reinin dichotomies that didn't seem to be consistent with my self-typing first:

- Yielding and obstinate:
Am I really an "obstinate" person? I don't think so.
Better names would be ressource-protecting and interest-protecting. Example: If someone asks me for a cigarette I will always give one. But if someone says something I don't agree with I will probably start to discuss with him, even if it might cause trouble. Yielding types would say "Okay then if it's your opinion" - and they would say "Sorry, I don't have any more cigarettes".

- Democratic and aristocratic:
Am I really a "democratic" person? Not really, I'm rather a communist.
But the description of democratic fits: I see every person as an individual. I don't dislike anyone just because he is black, gay or mentally retarded. It doesn't matter much to me if the German soccer team loses.

- Constructivist and emotivist:
As a logical type I didn't understand how I could be an emotivist. But actually I am...

- Merry and serious:
I'm rather melancholic than "merry". Subjectivist would be a better name but the descriptions fits more or less.

[FDG]

I voted for reasonable, static, emotivist. They're enough to identify INTj as your type.

[krieger]

Very Reasonable (relaxed/softened rather than mobilized), maybe Taciturn.

[The Exception]

Very Reasonable (relaxed/softened rather than mobilized), maybe Taciturn.

Not sure where I stand on Taciturn/Narrator (aka Asking/Declaring).

From Wikisocion: Asking and declaring - Wikisocion


Askers

1. tendency to dialogue Sometimes
2. much of what an askers says seems more question-like, even statements Yes
3. always, as the other person talks, affirm the receipt of information with yeah, mhm, etc. Yes
4. call talk to an audience as a whole very well Yes
5. starts talking at times expecting someone to get interested and start paying attention I wait and see that I have their attention first
6. has a tendency to interrupt and feels comfortable pausing half way on the speech and with "questions allowed all the time" way, returning to what was said later if necessary later I prefer not to be interrupted with questions in the middle of my speech, otherwise I lose my train of thought
7. quite often asks a non-rhetorical question and answers it himself Yes
8. often just asks questions to fill in time, without serious need to actually find the information asked No, I ask questions with the purpose of getting information

Declarers

1. tendency to monologue Sometimes
2. much of what a declarer says seems more statement-like, even questions No
3. listens attentively and silently to others' speeches to return to a long speech I have a hard time paying attention to others' long speeches
4. finds it easier to talk to one person at a time Depends on the situation
5. before starting to talk, first ascertains that attention is grabbed Yes
6. is very patient in terms of others speeches in terms of letting finish I try hard not to interrupt but find myself biting my tongue at times to not do so. I get easily bored when someone goes on and on and on
7. prefers to finish the speech before letting others talk, likes closure and that their point was conveyed Yes, definitely
8. questions are often either rhetorical or only strictly motivated by serious need for certain information Yes

[The Exception]

Well it looks like that the dichotomies getting the most votes *are* the ones consistent with LII:
Static, merry, reasonable, democratic, emotivist. Also a vote for taciturn.
I am sure about the first four (can you say ALPHA NT?). Less sure about the last two. Probably more emotivist now that I understand it better. No clue on the last.
Interestingly there are three dichotomies where the votes conflict each other: positivist/negativist, strategic/tactical, and process/result. There is only one vote for each so it doesn’t really mean much but all three of these dichotomies could go either way for me.

Positivist/negativist http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Positivist_and_negativist


Positivists

1. More inclined to optimize already functional systems of things and processes.
2. "This glass is half-full", "We have already collected $438,000 for that project"
3. Usually more complimenting than reprimanding.
4. Socially and intellectually more trusting.
5. Explains what things are (irrationals) or should be (rationals).

Negativists

1. More inclined to solve problems in systems of things and processes.
2. "This glass is half-empty", "We need $62,000 for that project"
3. Usually more reprimanding than complimenting.
4. Socially and intellectually more mistrusting.
5. Explains what things are not (irrationals) or should not be (rationals).

I guess I lean more towards negativist but its really a close call. I think I’d be more inclined to emphasize the money we need for the project as opposed to what we already have, so that’s what’s swaying me at the moment. I’m also more motivated by preventing losses than possible gains. Sad but true. On the other hand, I don’t see myself as particularly pessimistic. I’m not particularly optimistic either I’m pretty middle-of-the-road. I find overly negative people to be draining and unpleasant to be around but I doubt that relates to this dichotomy.

Process/Result Process and result - Wikisocion


Process types

1. Do things sequentially, from the beginning to the end.
2. Immersed to a process and tends to single-tasking.
3. Focus between the beggining and the end of processes.
4. More inclined to read texts on books or computer from beggining to the end.
5. Socially more inclined to large groups.

Result types

1. Do things randomly, seemingly doing them from the end to the beginning.
2. Detached from processes and tends to multitasking.
3. Focus on the beggining and the end of processes.
4. More inclined to read texts on books or computer randomly, maybe reading random paragraphs or chapters.
5. Socially more inclined to small groups or intimate conversations.

I can be both random and sequential depending on what I’m doing. I multitask a lot and always have several applications going on at once on the computer and go back on forth between them. On the other hand, there are things I totally get immersed in and do not want to be interrupted to do some other task. At work, I’ll be absorbed in some interesting project and then a customer will come up to me with a question and I begrudingly help him, rather resenting the interruption. I guess I don’t like to be forced to multitask unless I’m the one initiating it. Overall I focus more on the beginning or the end of processes than the process itself. I care a lot about the end result. More interested in that then the mere process. Although I don’t believe that the end always justifies the means (would that be result taken to an extreme?) How I read books of course depends largely on the book. Novels are made to read in order. To read it randomly wouldn’t make a whole lot of sense to me. Some instructional books are like that too. If you don’t read the first chapter, you’re not gonna understand a later chapter. With things like magazines and some non-fiction, I’ll jump around and look for whatever sections capture my interest. And I jump around a lot when reading the socionics forum. Socially, I prefer smaller groups and deeper conversations. But I’m an introvert and I don’t see how that’s in any way related to this dichotomy. So I guess I’m slightly more result but its almost too close to really tell.

Tactical/Strategic http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Tactical_and_strategic


Tacticals

1. Focus on methods, and manipulate them, with goals unsettled.
2. Goals are defined by, and modified to fit methods.
3. Prefers to expand options. Doesn't like to have too few of them.

Strategicals

1. Focus on goals, and manipulate them, with methods unsettled.
2. Methods are defined by, and modified to fit goals.
3. Prefers to defend goals. Doesn't like to be forced to deviate from them.

When first reading about this dichotomy, I was sure a strategic type. My initial impression of tactical types were aimless drifters lacking a sense of purpose. Okay I admit my bias. When taking a closer look, I’m not really all that goal oriented. I do have a few life goals but they tend to be pretty vague and general like, do something that makes a positive difference in society (but what that specific thing ends up being doesn’t matter that much just so as long as I know I’ve made a difference), be well read and achieve greater understanding of the world (there are a few books I’d really like to read before I die but most of this is pretty negotiable). In job interviews, the questions that are the worst are those “what do you see yourself doing five years from now?” types.
On the other hand, once I’ve set a goal, I generally want to stick to it and don’t like having to deviate from it. Also I relate very well to unsettled methods. So often I think, I want to do X but I’m not sure how to go about it. I think I’m more likely to modify methods to fit a goal than the other way around. Although, there are times where I get comfortable with a certain method and don’t want to deviate from that. I like having options and keeping them open but too many is overwhelming. So with this dichotomy, who knows? Probably more strategic because that’s consistent with LII, but the whole point of this polling was to see if these reinin dichotomies actually match up with peoples’ types.
Maybe certain dichotomies work better with certain types. Sometimes parts of the type profiles clearly contradict the said dichotomies for those types. With the LSE for exmaple:

When making plans for the future, LSEs typically do not leave room for unforeseen obstacles. These obstacles frustrate the LSE because they destroy the established rhythm of operations and require switching gears. In talking about their goals for the future, LSEs often leave out intermediate steps, leading others to consider them naive. In LSEs' opinion, the important thing is to express a clear goal; the step-by-step process of getting there is less important.

LSEs are supposedly farsighted, process, and tactical, yet this snippet suggests carefree (don’t leave room for unforeseen obstacles), result (often leave out intermediate steps, step-by-step process of getting there is less important), and strategic (the important thing is to express a clear goal). See what I mean?

[The Exception]

I voted for reasonable, static, emotivist. They're enough to identify INTj as your type.

Just so you know, IEE also shares those three dichotomies. Not that I am IEE of course.

I'm definitely more reasonable and pretty sure about static. I can identify with some of the dynamic stuff though, maybe its because I'm an IP harmonizing subtype, which is dynamic.

I am having difficultly with the constructivist/emotivist dichotomy.

According to Wikisocion, Constructivist and emotivist - Wikisocion

Constructivist and emotivist types

• The constructivist IM types are: ILE, ESE, EIE, SLE, ILI, ESI, SLI, and EII.
• The emotivist IM types are: SEI, LII, LSI, IEI, SEE, LIE, LSE, and IEE.
• Using the four-letter code: constructivists are TP or FJ, emotivists are TJ or FP.

LII is emotivist but I identify with quite a bit with EII, ILE, and ILI, which are all constructivist.

Theoretical properties of constructivist and emotivist types


Constructivist/emotivist corresponds with the inert/contact dichotomy for rational information elements:

• The constructivist types have contact logic and inert ethics.
• The emotivist types have contact ethics and inert logic.

Typical characteristics

Constructivist

1. Tend to minimize the emotional elements of interaction, preferring to focus on the 'business' elements.

Yes, I don't like things to get overly emotional, but maybe this is just because I'm a logical type.

2. Have emotional 'anchors' (eg, books, films, places) which they use to support their internal emotional state.

Not really

3. Can become 'emotionally hooked', and can have a strong reaction to a particular part or section regardless of their feelings towards the entirety.

Yes

4. Have greater difficulty disassociating from others' emotions and experiences than from requests for action or consideration.

Both. I am negatively affected by a bad emotional atmosphere. I also have difficultly disocciating from peoples' requests. I feel obligated to follow through on them.

5. “I prefer when people offer concrete solutions instead of comfort or sympathy.”

I want both. I guess ultimately the solution is more important (again, maybe this is just because I'm a T type)


Emotivist

1. Tend to concentrate foremost on the emotional background of interaction, with 'business' a secondary concern.

I go into an interaction with business in mind but if the emotional atmosphere is unpleasant it makes it hard to conduct business

2. Prefer the new and novel over the old and known.

Usually

3. Information perceived as unprofessional or low-quality can leave them indifferent.

Yes

4. Have greater difficulty disassociating from requests for action or consideration than from others' emotions and experiences.

Not sure. See #4 in the constructivist section above.

5. “If a conversation is emotionally negative, I consider it wasted.”

Generally, yes


Descriptions

Constructivists

Constructivists try to get into the right mindset for an activity and it takes time for them to get from one mindset to another. When they are at home, they are mentally prepared for anything that could happen at home and when they are at work, they switch over to work-mentality.
They can get overwhelmed by emotions because once they get into an emotional state, they stay in that emotional state for a long time.

All of the above is very true for me. That last statement sounds IJ temperament like.

Constructivists avoid emotional contact with others and they don't think it's necessary to adjust to the conversation emotionally.

I avoid interactions that are overly emotional but I do think its important to adjust emotionally when appropriate.

They use automatic polite responses and customs, like starting with "how are you?" or offering their guests coffee or tea. Practical conversation (talking "business") is easier for them.

Yes to the above

They like to repeat emotional states - rereading books, watching movies that they have already seen and revisiting places they liked. They avoid movies, situations and people who give them a negative mindset, because they have a difficult time getting rid of that mindset.

I did this more so when younger. I would watch movies and read books repeatedly to the point where I had them memorized. I don't really do this now. Exeption is I can listen to the same song over and over and not tire of it. I don't avoid movies or books because of the mindset they might give me, although I will do that with people.


Constructivists use emotional anchors (carefully chosen music, books, movies) to keep or strengthen their internal emotional state.

Not really.

Emotivists

Emotivists try to enter the emotional atmosphere of the conversation and they try to keep the emotion in the conversation positive.

Yes

They can talk about various things they have no interest in or do not believe in simply for the sake of maintaining a "positive spirit".

I can do this but I feel uneasy doing so. Its hard to fake interest when its not there.

Talking business is more difficult and the conversation topic can wander off into emotional exchange.

Usually not true

They try to get new experiences and new emotions, which is why they travel to new places and rarely watch movies they have already seen.

I seek new experiences but not really new emotions. I'm more inclined to want to see a new movie or visit someplace new than repeat past experiences

In emotivists calls for action/requests are not critically estimated and because of it they can get overwhelmed by them.

I think this is somewhat true. Its hard for me to turn down peoples' requests and I feel some sense of obligation to follow through on them. Not sure what this has to do with being emotivist.

After getting into a theme they stay in that mode of operation for a prolonged period of time and have difficulty switching, "disconnecting" (and because of it try to avoid unpleasant requests).

What do you mean by "getting into a theme"?

Examples

In forum conversations when a person asks a question, emotivists reply with conversational posts trying to find out what caused such a question and trying to see if they can make the person feel better. They can also include an answer to the question, but that's secondary. Constructivists give as good of an answer as they can to help find a solution. They might also include a question about why the question was asked by this particular person, but only when they are curious about it. It's not important for the thread (conversation) itself.

Both are important but as I said before, I'm most interested in the solution

Constructivists don't mind seeing a movie that they have already seen, but emotivists would only do that if there might be some new information that they missed the first time or if they have forgotten a lot about the movie. Constructivists might prefer re-watching a movie that gave them a good emotion to seeing something brand new that they don't know if they'll like. This is because constructivists have inert ethics and it's difficult to get rid of the wrong emotional state, but emotivists have contact ethics so they want to experience new emotions.

I relate more to the emotivist example above.

So overall, I'm confused with this dichotomy. Maybe my online behavior is different in than my behavior in real life. Maybe being a logical type skews things somewhat. Or maybe this dichotomy is just garbage. I find it hard to imagine ILEs being constructivist. They seem like they are the types who always want to experience something new and not the types to use emotional anchors.

[JohnDo]

So overall, I'm confused with this dichotomy. Maybe my online behavior is different in than my behavior in real life. Maybe being a logical type skews things somewhat. Or maybe this dichotomy is just garbage.

Just analyze some people whose types you know. Then you will realize that constructivists actually try to solve objective problems immediately and ignore emotional problems whereas emotivists try to solve emotional problems first. That's what this dichotomy is all about. I don't agree with some parts, either:

5. “I prefer when people offer concrete solutions instead of comfort or sympathy.”
5. “If a conversation is emotionally negative, I consider it wasted.”

These statements are strange. Constructivists' duals are emotivists - so why should constructivists prefer "when people offer concrete solutions instead of comfort or sympathy"?! Doesn't make sense. I try to keep emotions positive but if it doesn't work I don't necessarily consider the conversation wasted.

They try to get new experiences and new emotions, which is why they travel to new places and rarely watch movies they have already seen.

I hardly ever travel and very often watch movies I have already seen.



So just forget about those criteria and descriptions which are certainly misleading in some cases. Just look at some ILIs or EIEs and you will realize that they don't care about the emotional state of others, they try to offer solutions. Look at some SEIs or IEIs who obviously try to enter the emotional state of others first...

[The Exception]

Reinin dichotomies that didn't seem to be consistent with my self-typing first:

- Yielding and obstinate:
Am I really an "obstinate" person? I don't think so.
Better names would be ressource-protecting and interest-protecting. Example: If someone asks me for a cigarette I will always give one. But if someone says something I don't agree with I will probably start to discuss with him, even if it might cause trouble. Yielding types would say "Okay then if it's your opinion" - and they would say "Sorry, I don't have any more cigarettes".

If you take the terms *literally* I would be compliant but I would be obstinate going by your example.

To me, resources are only useful in that they provide a means for one to pursue interests. To me its kind of meaningless to amass resources simply for its own sake. I read stories about people who lose their homes (resources) and all their possessions in hurricanes and also stories about people who loved to dance and get in a serious accident that prevents them from ever being able to dance again (interest). I'm not a dancer but to me the second example, I would consider a far greater loss than the first one. I would be devastated if there was some passion I knew I could never pursue again. Losing all my possessions in a storm would certainly be very upsetting to me, but I wouldn't be totally devastated by it, especially if I knew I could still pursue my interests.

[

- Democratic and aristocratic:
Am I really a "democratic" person? Not really, I'm rather a communist.
But the description of democratic fits: I see every person as an individual. I don't dislike anyone just because he is black, gay or mentally retarded. It doesn't matter much to me if the German soccer team loses.

- Constructivist and emotivist:
As a logical type I didn't understand how I could be an emotivist. But actually I am...

- Merry and serious:
I'm rather melancholic than "merry". Subjectivist would be a better name but the descriptions fits more or less.

Again, why its so important not to take the terms literally! I'm clearly democratic and merry. Still trying to wrap myself around the constructivist/emotivist one...