Can one be typed correctly by Reinin dichotomies alone?

[Hays]

...

[Nexus]

Presently I have some confusion over my type as when I went through the Reinen dichotomies I was left with the type IEE.
I am interested in how reliable a method others find the use of the Reinen dichotomies to be in narrowing down people's types.

Reinin dichotomies - Wikisocion

quadra values usually help a lot, autocrat/democrat is usually easy to spot too...process/asking/positivist/constructivist/tactical/farsighted/yielding really give a better perspective on the psychology of each type but are not as useful for typing (though they can be)

[The Exception]

Most of the Reinin dichotomies are consistent with LII for me, but I still am skeptical of it being used as a typing method because I've seen too people for whom it doesn't work well for. I think the quadra value ones and static/dynamic are most useful.

[xerx]

The null / non-null dichotomy works consistently IME.

[Brilliand]

Karnaugh map listens to previous posters and says...

Use quadra, temperament and club separately; don't mix them!

Quadra triple:
-Merry/Serious
-Judicious/Decisive
-Aristocrat/Democrat

Temperament triple:
-Rational/Irrational
-Extratim/Introtim
-Static/Dynamic

Club triple:
-Sensing/Intuitive
-Thinking/Feeling
-Aristocrat/Democrat

EDIT: Specifically, the Karnaugh map came up with the rule that a dichotomy is useful if is ignores temperament OR ignores club OR is either Merry/Serious or Judicious/Decisive. I used the four Jungian dichotomies as the four variables for the map.

[krieger]

There is a secret fourth triple:

Negative/Postive
Process/Result
Static/Dynamic

AKA thought style.

[The Exception]

There is a secret fourth triple:

Negative/Postive
Process/Result
Static/Dynamic

AKA thought style.

Do you have descriptions for these different thought styles?

[Marie84]

"Correct" might be a bit subjective here, but I think it can go either way. I think people can type themselves as various types using different dichotomies, and I, personally, don't find the Reinin system to be as realistically applicable, it comes across as too externally observationally focused

[Krig the Viking]

Do you have descriptions for these different thought styles?

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...g-gulenko.html

[FDG]

Actually, typing by Reinin dichotomies can often be extremely effective, given that they're highly exclusive (i.e. you only need to identify a small amount of them (5) in order to reduce your possible typings to one).

Use quadra, temperament and club separately; don't mix them!

Quadra triple:
-Merry/Serious
-Judicious/Decisive
-Aristocrat/Democrat

Temperament triple:
-Rational/Irrational
-Extratim/Introtim
-Static/Dynamic

Club triple:
-Sensing/Intuitive
-Thinking/Feeling
-Aristocrat/Democrat

I'd say the best results for typing by Reinin dichotomies would be obtained with an algorithm such as this:
1) Pick 2 triples of your choice
2) Pick one of the triples you chooses at 1); pick two dichotomies among the 3, then identify precisely which reinin dichotomies fits you for each component pertaining to given triple
3) Pick the remaining triple and choose 2 reinin dichotomies.
4) Identify precisely which reinin dichotomy fits you for each of the 2 choices at point 3).

Only one type should remain. A useful "trick" is: don't try to "fit" every reinin dichotomy to whatever type you think you are: only a handful are necessary in order to exclude every other possibility.

[Simon Ssmall]

I get correct results when I go through each of those descriptions and then use:

(googletrasnlate the link)
Êàëüêóëÿòîð Ðåéíèíà

It allows to add values where you are not sure while going all out on dichotomies you are definately sure of.

[Crispy]

Reinin Dichotomies are also really good for deciding on your subtype in the two subtype system, although I don't know if/how it can be used for DCNH.

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ted-edits.html

Look at your type and the two subtypes next to it. Your subtype contains the reinin dichotomies that stand out the most on that list.

If you need explanations for the dichotomies go here: http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p...in_dichotomies

[JohnDo]

There is a fifth triple that might be useful: The future

Rational/Irrational
Tactical/Strategic
Carefree/Farsighted

Irrational*Tactical*Carefree: No plans, no goals, no worries
...
Rational*Strategic*Farsighted: many plans, many goals, many worries

[JohnDo]

Reinin Dichotomies are also really good for deciding on your subtype in the two subtype system, although I don't know if/how it can be used for DCNH.

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ted-edits.html

Look at your type and the two subtypes next to it. Your subtype contains the reinin dichotomies that stand out the most on that list.

Could you explain how to use this so-called "easy-to-use" behaviour tracker? I never understood how it works...

[krieger]

Do you have descriptions for these different thought styles?

What I view them as:
Negative/Result/Static: people that try to be grounded and stable; to have all their bases covered and not let their success depend on contingencies; also people that seek compromises between different oppurtunities, trying to find the best way to combine these
Positive/Process/Static: people that pursue breakthroughs with a lot of energy; people that shallowly detect problems and instantly throw their weight into solving these (in ISTjs' case, for example, decisive action is a way out of a stagnant practical situation)
Positive/Result/Dynamic: people that get obsessed with oppurtunities the moment they pass by; a very opportunist way of thinking that snatches boons from the environment faster than any other
Negative/Process/Dynamic: people that try to understand problems very well before tackling them; people that see difficulties easier than others and have the most indepth understanding of these

[Aiss]

^ It's worth noting that thinking styles from Gulenko's article Krig linked earlier are a bit different from the above. Not the least because they focus on how people actually think and not some traits that may or may not follow.

[FDG]

^ It's worth noting that thinking styles from Gulenko's article Krig linked earlier are a bit different from the above. Not the least because they focus on how people actually think and not some traits that may or may not follow.

But they're actually exactly the same thing. What labcoat describes naturally follows from what Gulenko describes. Notice though how you seem to be adhering to the way labcoat describes your thinking style with your objection

[Crispy]

Could you explain how to use this so-called "easy-to-use" behaviour tracker? I never understood how it works...

The only part I'm using is the table at the beginning.

* * * -Ne+ * * * * -Ti+ * * * * *-Se+ * * * * -Fi+
infj * * * * INTJ * * * * ISTJ * * * * * ISFJ * * * * * INFJ
* * * * * democracy * aristocracy * democracy * *aristocracy
* * * * * result * * * *process * * * result * * * * *process
* * * * * negativism * positivism * *negativism * *positivism
* * * * * taciturn * * *narrative * * taciturn* * * * narrative
* *Judiciousness * * * * * * * *Resoluteness
* *Strategy * * * * * * * * * * Tactics
* *Calculating * * * * * * * * *Carefree
* *Childish* * * * * * * * * * *Aggressive
* * * * * * * * *Cheerfulness* * * * * * * * *Gravity
* * * * * * * * *Obstinacy* * * * * * * * * * Compliance
* * * * * * * * *Emotion-creating* * * * * * *Construct-creating

Ne-INTj's would associate more with Judiciousness, Strategy, Calculating and Childish.
Ti-INTj's would associate more with Cheerfulness, Obstinacy, and Emotion-creating.
So whatever stands out more for someone would be their subtype.

[Aiss]

But they're actually exactly the same thing. What labcoat describes naturally follows from what Gulenko describes. Notice though how you seem to be adhering to the way labcoat describes your thinking style with your objection

As I said, these traits may follow, but they're neither the crux of the matter nor obligatory. More importantly, they're misleading. If you read it without knowing the in-depth descriptions, you're likely to end up identifying with a different style than one you actually use. That is without considering that most of these traits are at least ambiguous.

[krieger]

All that also goes for Gulenko's writings and almost any description in socionics. The level of accuracy that you want is simply not attainable where a vague topic like personality theory is concerned.

[Aiss]

Just because a perfect accuracy isn't attainable doesn't mean we should disregard accuracy completely. I find your descriptions hard to agree with even knowing the theory behind, and I'd disagree with the end result if I didn't know the "right" - which is by no means most obvious - interpretation. I wish you luck in getting any ILI identifying with your version of dialectical-algorithmic without such background (snatching opportunities faster than any other, aye.)

[krieger]

If a person doesn't identify with the description of "dwelling on problems" and "seeing things that could go wrong" they shouldn't identify with any INTp profile either. INTp is the type that gets described in these terms almost as a tradition in socionics.

[Aiss]

OK, you got me here, I misread at first and thought the third description was supposed to be dialectical-algorithmic (hence my comments about snatching). I take back what I said about disagreeing with it, after all. Still, these descriptions don't reflect the nature of the thinking styles and would be misleading on their own. I may have originally confused them, but it doesn't change the fact that the first and last one could just as well be swapped.

[Nexus]

The only part I'm using is the table at the beginning.


Ne-INTj's would associate more with Judiciousness, Strategy, Calculating and Childish.
Ti-INTj's would associate more with Cheerfulness, Obstinacy, and Emotion-creating.
So whatever stands out more for someone would be their subtype.

you guys are misrepresenting triples -any two reinin traits implies a third, and they are usually called the small cycles

Smilingeyes uses them to type a lot, they are useful for determining
subtypes and I have found in my experience that he is quite correct

result types are good at multitasking and making useful judgments (irrational when fully external or internal), they see the world in states
process types are good at following through and making useful perceptions (rational when fully external or internal), they see the world as a progression

thought styles stem directly from process and temperament (supervision style is a little more descriptive)

static result types (negative) I tend to see as dense, they are good at organizing information
dynamic result types (positive) I tend to see as messy, they are good at producing novelties
static process types (positive) I tend to see as quackery, they are good at proposing theories
dynamic process types (negative) I tend to see as robotic, they are good at detailing procedures

[krieger]

Still, these descriptions don't reflect the nature of the thinking styles and would be misleading on their own. I may have originally confused them, but it doesn't change the fact that the first and last one could just as well be swapped.

1. I don't claim these should be used on their own. They should just subtly adjust the view of the types one gets by first applying other methods.
2. They do reflect the nature of the thinking styles.
3. The first and last are both Negativist groups, so it is perfectly natural that they have similar characteristics.

[JohnDo]

The "triple" I mentioned above is not really a triple because Carefree/Farsighted can not be derived from Tactical/Srategic and Rational/Irrational. But there are 35 triples and certainly more than 4 are useful...

There are 15 dichotomies. Every dichotomy can be derived from 7 pairs of 2 other dichotomies. 15*7=105 triples which has to be divided by 3 because farsighted*introverted=intuitive is the same same triple as farsighted*intuitive=introverted and introverted*intuitive=farsighted. So there are 7*15/3 = 35 triples

farsighted * introverted = intuitive
farsighted * logical = negativist
farsighted * rational = judicious
farsighted * obstinate = democratic
farsighted * static = strategic
farsighted * emotivist = asking
farsighted * merry = result
obstinate * introverted = logical
obstinate * intuitive = negativist
obstinate * rational = merry
obstinate * static = emotivist
obstinate * strategic = asking
obstinate * judicious = result
static * introverted = rational ----- club triple
static * intuitive = judicious
static * logical = merry
static * democratic = asking
static * negativist = result ----- thinking style triple
democratic * intuitive = logical ----- temperament triple
democratic * introverted = negativist
democratic * rational = result
democratic * strategic = emotivist
democratic * judicious = merry ----- quadra triple
strategic * intuitive = rational
strategic * introverted = judicious
strategic * logical = result
strategic * negativist = merry
emotivist * logical = rational
emotivist * introverted = merry
emotivist * intuitive = result
emotivist * negativist = judicious
merry * intuitive = asking
judicious * logical = asking
negativist * rational = asking
result * introverted = asking

[The Exception]

Ne-INTj's would associate more with Judiciousness, Strategy, Calculating and Childish.

Childish isn't a reinin dichotomy.

[krieger]

Childish/infantile is just another label for Ne. Its also a horribly bad one.

[Crispy]

Childish isn't a reinin dichotomy.

It still is a bit more prominent in Ne > Ti subtypes. A better name for it would be non-aggression (physical).

[717495]

Reinin would type me ENTp going off of his dichotomies. But based on the main four dichotomies I'm INTp. I don't know how he gets extrovert out of that, but I'm rather introverted and I test high for introversion. Maybe if we change the definition for E and I in Socionics, but I'll never be an ENTP in MBTI, not that they define E and I the same, just saying.

[Crispy]

Which reinen dichotomies are you referring to? Hopefully not the quadra based ones (Merry/Serious, Democratic/Aristocratic, Judicious/Decisiveness). If you score ENTp on those, then there would be nothing tieing you to gamma. IME all of the Reinen Dichotomies are fairly accurate for me, especially the ones related to Ne.

[tcaudilllg]

I think the non-Jungian dichotomies are eventually going to have to be renamed because of the potential for confusion. Still, they do seem to point towards something meaningful, if difficult to express.

[JohnDo]

I think the non-Jungian dichotomies are eventually going to have to be renamed because of the potential for confusion. Still, they do seem to point towards something meaningful, if difficult to express.

Exactly. Hard to believe that we really agree in this case...

I would even rename rational/irrational and call it judging/perceiving.

[JohnDo]

There is a 5th important triple: romance styles.

static * intuitive = judicious ----- romance stype triple
static * negativist = result ----- thinking style triple
static * introverted = rational ----- club triple
democratic * intuitive = logical ----- temperament triple
democratic * judicious = merry ----- quadra triple

Interesting, static/dynamic and democratic/aristocratic seem to be especially important here. So I guess there should also lie something meaningful behind static*democratic=asking. In my opinion asking/declaring is very useful even for typing so I would call it the "communication style triple":

static*democratic*asking = Alpha-NT / Gamma-SF = to learn, get information
dynamic*democratic*declaring = Alpha-SF / Gamma-NT = to explain, share information
dynamic*aristocratic*asking = Beta-NF / Delta-ST = smalltalk
static*aristocratic*declaring = Beta-ST / Delta-NF = story-telling


The following triples might be meaningful, too:

static * farsighted = strategic
static * obstinate = emotivist
static * logical = merry
democratic * introverted = negativist
democratic * rational = result
democratic * strategic = emotivist
democratic * farsighted = obstinate

[Creepy-cinq]

This thread on Reinin dichotomies I think is one of the most useful exchanges of information on this board. The concept of triples has far more potential in understanding type than a handful of type descriptions.

My hesitation with using Reinin dichotomies is in the definitions and labels. They have the potential to mislead and to misinterpret. I've read about the dichotomies from two different sources and both sources diverged in the interpretations. Also the labels placed on the dichotomies were different.