I haven't seen several of the Reinin dichotomies actually work in action. Specifically, I can't really make sense of Carefree/Farsighted, Tactical/Strategic, Yielding/Obstinate, Constructivist/Emotivist, or Asking/Declaring.
Reinin Dichotomies: do they work?
I haven't seen several of the Reinin dichotomies actually work in action. Specifically, I can't really make sense of Carefree/Farsighted, Tactical/Strategic, Yielding/Obstinate, Constructivist/Emotivist, or Asking/Declaring.
A lot of people have apparently used them to type people. But the official descriptions are based on observations on a very small number of people, and the names may be somewhat misleading. In my opinion, the biggest problem from what I've observed is that people who use them as a primary typing method tend to ignore more obvious clues about a person's type. So you get these weird typing based on some obscure fact about a person that may or may not have to do with a Reinin dichotomy, and all the obvious information is left out.
Hell yes I did!Originally Posted by HunterX
Definitely!
Quadra boundaries are drawn by any two of the following three:
- Merry/Serious
- Judicious/Decisive
- Democratic/Aristocratic
I can spot Positivist/Negativist, anyone that can pick up on the Gulenko cognitive styles can simultaneously spot Positivist/Negativist and Process/Result in one clear shot, some people (not myself at this point in time) can pick up on Static/Dynamic...
If you can spot something, use it!
p . . . a . . . n . . . d . . . o . . . r . . . a
trad metalz | (more coming)
I spent the time one afternoon (it was an exceedingly boring afternoon) endeavouring to determine the mathematical derivations Reinin used to create his extra-Jungian dichotomies. It was only after I spent several hours doing this that I found exactly what I found out in far simpler terms on wikisocion. Here it is:
So, it is basically thus: the Jungian dichotomies can be considered first tier, the second tier is a combination of any two first tier dichotomies, the third tier is a combination of any two second tier dichotomies (or any three first tier dichotomies), and the fourth tier (which is comprised solely of Taciturn/Narrator) is a combination of any third tier dichotomies (or all three first tier dichotomies). As a whole, it makes a very integrated and overlapping system.
This.
there isn't really anything "mathematical" about Reinin except in that you can use convoluted strings of symbols to express what types the names denote, just like you can use math to create precise but unreadable definitions of any phenomenon.
a lot of the Reinin traits denote things that are already part of regular socionics. for example, merry/serious is just a name for Ti/Fe vs. Te/Fi values. it's the rest of the dichotomies that are more interesting in the sense of possibly getting at things that are not commonly known.
This. Reinins aren't additional accessory to Socionics, as some people around here haphazardly believe.
Yes. But not by themselves.
Let's see if INFJ's Reinin Dichotomies work for me.
Reading/comparing each one...
Static, yes
Declarer, yep
Positivist, indeed! Seems to fit vividly with other types too
Strategist. A very interesting dichotomy, I'm definitely a strategist
Constructivist, ay yes. Definitely
Left/rightist. I'm confused by this article which types are left/right, but I definitely relate to right a whole lot more
Compliant. Yep, ! This is going good so far
Farsighted. This makes sense to me
Well, I'm going to skip the last quadra value ones they're longer to read, but most likely will fit (from what I remember). I mainly wanted to test out the trickier dichotomies, and they seem promising/fitting! It's very interesting...
Also, apparently the article I posted was the original or an original that Ashton translated. Empirical quality control on these things I believe, same goes with the main 4 dichotomies (which aren't supposed to be MBTI, thank you.)
Just from obvious observation there are plenty of MBTI INTPs who are ego-oriented to. And we have Jung disagreeing with their simplicity, not like that matters or anything.
It means that the dichotomy of obstinate/compliant is determined by the complex of Extroversion/Introversion and Thinking/Feeling. ExTx and IxFx are compliant whereas IxTx and ExFx are obstinate, if I remember correctly (it seems that wikisocion is currently down so I cannot verify this). From what I understand, only two of the Reinin dichotomies (Merry/Serious and Carefree/Farsighted, both f which are quadra values) line up directly to function. In many of the second tier dichotomies and especially in the third and fourth tier dichotomies, there are too many complexities of the combinations for it to neatly line up to function.
fixed.From what I understand, only two of the Reinin dichotomies (Merry/Serious and Reasonable/Resolute, both f which are quadra values) line up directly to function.
the other dichotomies can be linked to function traits, but you need some unorthodox ones.
+ = whichever of the functions in a pair is leftmost in the sequence N T S F N
- = whichever of the functions in a pair is rightmost in the sequence N T S F N
Focal = Creating Static, Accepting Dynamic
Diffuse = Accepting Static, Creating Dynamic
Positivist: +Diffuse, -Focal
Negativist: +Focal, -Diffuse
Process: +Accepting, -Creating
Result: +Creating, -Accepting
Aristocrat: +J, -P
Democrat: +P, -J
Taciturn: +e, -i
Narrative: +i, -e
Obstinate: Valued Focal F, Valued Diffuse T (= "interest protecting")
Compliant: Valued Focal T, Valued Diffuse F (= "resource protecting")
Emotivist: Strong Focal Serious, Strong Diffuse Merry
Constructivist: Strong Focal Merry, Strong Diffuse Serious
Farsighted: Valued Focal N, Valued Diffuse S
Carefree: Valued Focal S, Valued Diffuse N
Strategic: Strong Focal Reasonable, Strong Diffuse Resolute
Tactical: Strong Focal Resolute, Strong Diffuse Reasonable
the last of these can be combined to create Focus Quadras and Focus Clubs. INTj, for example, is Focus NF and Focus Delta (although there is nothing sensible about calling it Focus Delta NF).
they signify a natural progression between the functions... an idea N gives rise to a set of logical formulations T, which finds its application in practice S, after which certain qualitative determination is made (i.e. "not good enough in respect X"), which leads to refined understanding of the idea N. + and - just respectively denote "earlier" and "later" in this sequence.What's with the positive and negative signs?
they're pretty abstract aspects that mean just what the names imply (i've chosen them myself for that purpose). but the best summary of their origin is that something is Focal when it is immediately within one's direct knowledge and experience (Focal/Accepting/Dynamic), or when it is the satisfactory end result of your investigations of a topic (Focal/Creating/Static). anything in between is Diffuse in the sense of being something speculative, transitory, arbitrary.What's the difference between Focal and Diffuse?
however, Focal and Diffuse are determined by the person's receptive mentality. something can be within one's immediate reception but not interpreted as Focal. it all depends whether the person is indiscriminate (Accepting; sufficing with ontological subjectivity) or discriminate (Creating; wanting ontological objectivity) toward the category of information.
there's a whole story behind each one of them.So... This is a summary of the reinin stuff at wikisocion? How do you interpret it exactly?
I used it successfully! Me! Now I own 4 Jung Dichotomies and 6 extra Reinin Dichotomies = Total 10 dichotomies on arms (But it is not a limit for my methodology!).
The success of using these dichotomies is to increase the accuracy of the resulting typing to 95%
The way how do I considered this accuracy you may see there:
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ad.php?t=36541
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ad.php?t=36576
Also: It worth to learning. But you must be very careful before use it:
1) Get information about of approximate probability about of signs of the current dichotomy.
2) To get this information you must consult to the experts, for example: with me.
Not all of the Reinin dichotomies have the same approximate probability to identify. Some of them good researched. Some of them poor. They are not equal in compare with each other. Some of them have lots of specific conditions - so without consulting with an expert - it would be difficult for you to understand at least one extra dichotomy from Jung Basis.
Be warned: if you didn't get this information - consider that this current (dichotomy, that you had been chosen to study) dichotomy has an approximate probability not better than "random" - that's why - it is not worth to learn.
Don't be a monkey like these members!
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ad.php?t=36543
This rule must be also applied to Jung basis.
3) When you reached to own more than 4 dichotomies, and understood the accuracy of each dichotomy - start use the Calculator of Reinin dichotomies created by me - the only true calculator in the world! I can send it to you.
Also: Be warned: Understanding any of Reinin dichotomy requires similar or more efforts as you invested to understanding any of Jung dichotomies. Otherwise - consider that you don't learned it!
*Probably* must have been a mistype, then.Hell yes I did!
The one I posted. http://forum.socionix.com/topic/3327...n-dichotomies/
Oh and I found out "right" is for INFJ. Wow these work after all, I'm surprised by the accuracy.
So. Let me to share with you my experience of usage Reinin's dichotomies.
As I told you, I own 6 Reinin's dichotomies successfully in typing. So, here they are, and also the approximately accuracy:
Statics | Dynamics 90 - 95%
QuesTIM - DeclaTIM 85%
Positivism | Negativism 87 - 90%
Constructivism | Emotivism 85%
Merry | Seriousness 93%
Judicious | Decisive 95%
Comments about other dichotomies:
The current description of quadras dichotomies are inefficient in use - according to my experience.
Also note: detecting signs of quadras dichotomies I using the principal another methodology oriented on the analizing the intertype relations and requires already perfectly identified type of typist. Otherwise you will not be able to take on arms my methodology of identifying quadras dichotomies. I have also an article which describes my methodology and systematised material where collected all found signs which are can be efficiently used to identify this dichotomy.
I have also some idea the same way to detect the real practical signs of the dichotomy Democratism | Aristocratism but every time, after I fixate something - the signs - are leaked out from my memory. Perhaps developing socionics in the digital video format - will help me to solve this problem.
The best description of signs had proposed Talanov V L in 2006 of these dichotomies:
Tactics | Strategy
Constructivism | Emotivism
Compliance | Obstinacy
Carelessness | Foresight
So I using now his experience to identify these dichotomies. But currently I achieved success only in Constructivism | Emotivism. Other dichotomies requires more theoretical practice. I suppose that I be able to understand the dichotomy Tactics | Strategy - but the problem is similar: something always leaking out from my memory.
The current description of these dichotomies taken from
http://forum.socionix.com/topic/3327...vism-emotivism
I don't understand, when I read it first(also in russian version), and I still not understand it at all. I also suppose that the authors in real - also don't understand what do they mean
Dichotomy: Process | Result - considered as a "white spot". No one of the socionists don't know about of real sense of this dichotomy. Those who talking another - perhaps lie. So my advise for you - don't learn this dichotomy. It is not worth it. Just know who is who according to this dichotomy.
After all set out my conclusion and recommendation to you: what to study:
Statics | Dynamics
QuesTIM - DeclaTIM
Positivism | Negativism
I have a work which fixating practically signs of the dichotomies QuesTIM - DeclaTIM and Positivism | Negativism
You may see them there:
Positivism | Negativism
http://www.socioforum.su/viewtopic.php?f=588&t=40309
QuesTIM - DeclaTIM
http://www.socioforum.su/viewtopic.php?f=588&t=33831
All of these people are perfectly typed by me, and also there are well known socionists such as Boukalov, Goulenko, Pedan, Udalova, Simonov. Socionic types all of them are also checked by me, before they was included to my database for further analizing.
I hope - these materials would be useful for you to learning to successful applying these dichotomies.
So. Let me share with you the short version of filling Talanov's dichotomy
Constructivism - Emotivism
http://www.socionic.ru/index.php/201...odel_t_talanov
"Constructivists" are balanced on the threshold of excitation and inhibition of unbalanced logic and ethics, emotivists "vice versa. Serenity, control logic and motor areas in the Constructivist expressed them much better adapted to such professions as a dancer or professional athlete. They also are much more graphology mature style "again by motor balance (motor skills and logic" is very close to the sphere). But they are not adapted to situations requiring emotional endurance and flexibility ethical manipulation. professions such as diplomats, journalists, public policy is much more preferred emotivists.
That's laughable.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
[Today 03:52 PM] Analyst Trevor: Irrationality: Well-defined J function coincides with Constructivism
[Today 03:53 PM] Analyst Trevor: Rationality: Constructivism coincides with not-well-defined J function
[Today 03:54 PM] Analyst Trevor: i.e. Irrational types become dramatic when J situation gets too restrictive
[Today 03:54 PM] Analyst Trevor: and Rational types become dramatic when J situation isn't restricted enough...it's too chaotic for them..remaining cool becomes hard
[Today 03:55 PM] Analyst Trevor: while P types succesfully navigate through that chaos
[Today 03:57 PM] Analyst Trevor: but struggle with excessive lack thereof
[Today 03:58 PM] Analyst Trevor: Irrationality = Thinking+Constructivism and Feeling+Emotivism
[Today 03:59 PM] Analyst Trevor: Rationality = Feeling+Constructivism and Thinking+Emotivism
That was just a short version. The long version contains 4 pages description on the format letter A4. With more examples, characteristics, ets. But Now - it is not for Public. I have a photo copies. But, perhaps - you will not understand Russian.
Those who do not type using reinen dichotomies, will be significantly less accurate over the long run than those who do.
Don't believe me? One less tool in the toolbox for you
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
Eventually, all of them. But it is known that some are far easier to grasp and/or type by than others. Here are some Reinen materials: One. Two.
As of now, I am far from confident with (typing from) any of the reinen dichotomies, but the potential is undeniable. IMO the easiest ones to start/learn seem to be Positivist/Negativist and Asking/Declaring, but your journey may vary.
Edit: I'll also post Yaaroslav's link in English for it contained some very interesting info for many of the reinen dichotomies: Three.
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
The required work I have already done there:
Positivism | Negativism
http://www.socioforum.su/viewtopic.php?f=588&t=40309
QuesTIM - DeclaTIM
http://www.socioforum.su/viewtopic.php?f=588&t=33831
All of these people are perfectly typed by me, and also there are well known socionists such as Boukalov, Goulenko, Pedan, Udalova, Simonov. Socionic types all of them are also checked by me, before they was included to my database for further analizing.
So. You have just to translate and learn the examples. Unfortunately: now Google translator doesn't work. Maybe later I will present you the translation
Now you may see google translator version
Positivists - Negativists
http://translate.google.com/translat...88%26t%3D40309
QuesTIM - DeclaTIM
http://translate.google.com/translat...88%26t%3D33831
Have you had your spinach today, Popeye ?
I've started to use these dichotomies more and more often when typing people. It seems that trying to correlate behavior to cognitive functions 1-to-1 leads to erroneous results more often than trying to use correlate their combinations to behaviors, which actually makes perfect sense.
Ones that I use:
Static/Dynamic - This one is relatively easy to tell for anyone coming to socionics from MBTI because that's just MBTI's judgers (dynamics) and perceivers (statics). Statics apparently get confused for Te-egos. I'm guessing this is because of their propensity to describe states, how something is, which people who equate Te to facts take to mean that they must be Te-valuing.
Merry/Serious - this one is pretty simple, it's just differences between FeTi vs FiTe
Judicous/Decisive - simple one too, NiSe vs NeSi
Asking/Declaring - this is a weird one but after some interaction it tends to stand out
Process/Result - apparently this one is person's propensity for deductive vs inductive reasoning
Negativist/Positivism - saying "that's not bad" vs saying "this is good"
Tactical/Strategic - this one is very obvious if you play any multiplayer games otherwise it is rather obscure, only I'd separate tacticals and strategists into "light" and "heavy" groups
Aristocratic vs Democratic - supposedly works but I find it difficult to apply for some reason
Ones that I'm not sure about: Carefree/Farsighted, Constructivist/Emotivist, Yielding/Obstinate (I guess this one is like if you live together with your SO do you keep your finances separate or your ideologies separate).
Strategists seem to operate more in terms of goals/imperatives, allowing their lives to become orchestrated around whatever target they're pursuing. Tacticians don't so much—at least not overtly—but it's harder for me to articulate what they're doing. Abbie mentioned something once about how she doesn't follow 'goals'; I forget exactly how she said it, but it was interesting.
I tend to think of this one as Centralization vs. Decentralization—it avails itself most readily in institutional settings. One evolves towards clearer chains of command and hierarchical structure (though this needn't necessarily be explicit), while the other evolves towards more lateral distribution of decision-making power.Aristocratic vs Democratic - supposedly works but I find it difficult to apply for some reason
You looks to much Carefree - in this post(But not in Reinin sense). Don't consider that owning the Reinin dichotomies are the more simple as the Jung basis. They are heavier! So now. I will explain you the details.
Maybe
Of course - it is! but there is no valid practical data in socionics which allows you to identify this dichotomy with a high accuracy
The same prombem
I can identify this dichotomy quite fast. Maybe you can more= Intuition - Sensored. You don't know exactly what does means this dichotomy, and I don't know also.
Maybe
The real sense of this dichotomy hard to understand. But I can exactly tell you, that you are wrong.
Given that even decent Reinin descriptions are rare, this may be hard to find, but I'd like to see a full explanaton of exactly why the dichotomies are what they are, like how Reinin decided what traits would apply to each dichotomy. For example, why are ET and IF yielding and IT and EF obstinate? It would be really nice to know, and then typists could actually use these dichotomies on a stronger basis than memorization and blind faith.
Obstinacy is all about having a Focal Valued F function (i.e. "interest protecting"; interest = F; protecting = Focal).
Thrust, But check! Of course you must to use it without a blind faith. Do critical analyse: which dichotomies are true work, and witch are not. I can't explain why re ET and IF yielding and IT and EF obstinate? - Because I am not expert in this dichotomy, but I am expert in another dichotomies so you may learn my experience in that way. Dichotomy yielding-obstinate is still undiscovered.Given that even decent Reinin descriptions are rare, this may be hard to find, but I'd like to see a full explanaton of exactly why the dichotomies are what they are, like how Reinin decided what traits would apply to each dichotomy. For example, why are ET and IF yielding and IT and EF obstinate? It would be really nice to know, and then typists could actually use these dichotomies on a stronger basis than memorization and blind faith.
[Today 12:15 AM] Analyst Trevor: BOOST YOUR TYPING SKILLZ, USE REDUNDANT MEASUREMENTZ
[Today 12:16 AM] Analyst Trevor: THAT'S WHAT REININ DICHOTOMIES ARE BORN FOR
[Today 12:16 AM] Analyst Trevor: NOT JUST GOOD FOR
[Today 12:16 AM] Analyst Trevor: BUT BORN FOR
[Today 12:19 AM] Analyst Trevor: ONLY TODAY IN YOUR TOWN
[Today 12:20 AM] Analyst Trevor: TOMORROW WE'RE SOMEWHERE ELSE
[Today 12:16 PM] Analyst Trevor: i'm peak taciturn at the moment
[Today 12:16 PM] Analyst Trevor: you know what that feels like?
[Today 12:17 PM] Analyst Trevor: it feels like you've lost every bit of knowledge/understanding that is relevant
[Today 12:17 PM] Analyst Trevor: all you're left with are trivialities, boring stuff
[Today 12:17 PM] Analyst Trevor: at least that's how the thing works for me
[Today 12:19 PM] 07490: Never got that far in socionic but it sounds like i can use the word depression
[Today 12:19 PM] 07490: Want to try some legal over the counter supplement?
[Today 12:20 PM] Analyst Trevor: that's not it, i'm not depressed
[Today 12:20 PM] Analyst Trevor: i'm just in a need for closure, but the closure is nowhere in sight
[Today 12:23 PM] 07490: Alrite
[Today 12:26 PM] Analyst Trevor: as much as i would want never ever to experience this i guess it's neccessary if i want to progress at all
[Today 12:27 PM] Analyst Trevor: as my personal history teaches me i'll probably get some relevation soon
[Today 12:28 PM] Analyst Trevor: a rather prolonged state of peak taciturn would not have any evolutionary purpose anyway, it'd be pointless
[Today 12:29 PM] 07490: It sounds a dramatic thing
[Today 12:30 PM] Analyst Trevor: somewhat
[Today 12:31 PM] Analyst Trevor: it's not something that i choose for myself, it just happens to me
[Today 12:32 PM] 07490: What are these types?
[Today 12:32 PM] 07490: Well yea
[Today 12:32 PM] Analyst Trevor: Taciturn => ENTp ESFp INTj ISFj ESTj ENFj ISTp INFp
[Today 12:33 PM] 07490: I goota go now sorry
[Today 12:34 PM] Analyst Trevor: bon voayage
[Today 12:41 PM] Analyst Trevor: mine was the Rational version of Taciturn...where Taciturn coincides with Negativism
Trevor:so...Rationals are Negative when there is no closure, viceversa for Irrationals
Trevor: closure just kills them
Trevor: see this: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...1&postcount=27
Trevor: basically the same message
Trevor: the same conclusion reached via two different reinin configurations
woofwoofl: Taciturn, Negativist, and Judicious coinciding, that sounds intense
Trevor: namely: Rational = NEG/TAC or POS/NAR
Trevor: and Rational = CON/F or EMO/T
Trevor: which brings me back to one of my previous thoughts that various reinin configurations meant to explain one and same thing are just different means via which we get to reach an understanding
Trevor: redundant measurements bitcheez http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...2&postcount=43
Trevor: reinin dichotomies are a measuring instrument of a sort
Trevor: they are capable of keeping the whole thing in check by adding the redundant measurements
Last edited by Trevor; 08-23-2011 at 10:40 PM.
Why don't you ever compose official scriptures Trevor?
(i)NTFS
An ILI at rest tends to remain at rest
and an ILI in motion is probably not an ILI
♫ 31.9FM KICE Radio ♫ *56K Warning*
My work on Inert/Contact subtypes
Socionics Visual Identification(V.I.) Database
Socionics Tests Database
Comprehensive List of Socionics Sites
Fidei Defensor
need more knowledge
[Today 05:10 AM] Analyst Trevor
: according to reinin dichotomies Introversion is Negative Democracy + Positive Aristocracy
[Today 05:10 AM] Analyst Trevor
: i.e. introverts are not really happy if they have to deal with people and their issues
[Today 05:11 AM] Analyst Trevor
: while interdependence and dealing with people motivates extroverts
[Today 05:11 AM] Analyst Trevor
: because extroversion is Positive Democracy + Negative Aristocracy
[Today 05:12 AM] Analyst Trevor
: this is just another way of saying that Introverts prefer to be left alone, opposite for Extroverts
explain how something "works" for you and only then will i be able to answer the question
The Reinin dichotomies are a speculation based on a combination of the arbitrary chosen - within the Model A - Jungian dichotomies. One one hand it implies some strange groupings, like N and T, on the other it misses some other actual (real) distinctions, like External-Base:
- Logics or Sensing Base: focus on concrete and useful outcome.
- Ethics or Intuition Base: focus on abstract, inner or virtual aspects.
As we know, the Model A explains everything from simple fundamental rules, it is the periodic system of elements form which everything can be derived. Socionics doesn't need these extensive definitions to work and IME solely the ones who don't understand it very well believe in these given attributes unconditionally, clinging to their contingent notoriety and trying to "prove" them, one way or another.
Let's not forget that the traits of the Reinin dichotomies were not determined through scientific method, but rather a creative process: brainstorming to separate the types into these virtual groups, groups that emerged themselves as an exercise of mind, with no guarantee of having any validity. Such associations and parallels are made on a regular basis in different areas like art, advertising, interior design, just they're subjective and uncommon to the world of science. Some of them may have indeed a raesonable or empirical basis, which does not however guarantee accuracy. For instance, IMO the description of the Tactical/Strategic dichotomy has an understandable basis, except it is incorrectly applied to Beta and Delta Irrationals: it can be both observed on real life subjects and deduced from the Model, where they depend on the External/Internal nature of the Producing functions.
---
As we were, I find the title pretty appropriate for Tactical/Strategic, applied on the same types with the aforementioned exceptions [1], though I personally find some other differences more visible:
- Tacticals (F or N PoLR): decide in place whether they adopt or reject new facts, truthds or methods that require a change of path or a revision of knowledge. They may come back on them later, but only incidentally, if they recall, find again or are reminded about them.
- Strategics (T or S PoLR): they immediately reject the adoption of new principles or methods that disturb their path. However they always keep them in mind and, if appropriate, they absorb them slowly along the time.
The former [2] are typically the people who can quickly decide whether they want something or not (for instance a relationship), the latter [3] are the ones that need accomodation, regardless of wit they are waiting for something. Why this happens, simple: while the first (Base, Program) function is used constantly, the second (Creative) is used sequentially and intermittently in support of the former. When the latter is given the concrete properties of Sensing and Logics, the psyche is empowered to take exclusive decisions at any incremental step. These are people who can be impetuous, or can tell you whether they agree or not immediately, who are used to learn from mistakes, rather than building a whole picture before acting, or lawyer-type [4] or "works for now" people. I don't think ths dichotomy can be correctly determined on people one does not interract with for a sufficient period of time, like celebrities. IMO for now, the attitudes cannot be distinguished directly (behaviorally), the actual timing would be irrelevant to one's cognition process.
To mention that these changes do not necessarily mean change of direction or views, but rather including or excluding considerations (and methods, if the case). Strategic can be easily confused with Introverted and Rational, Tactical with Extroverted and Irrational, IMO pretty much a similar problem to the one that makes the confusion between Introverted Intuitive in MBTI VS Socionics: Introverted + Judicious/Decisive VS Rational/Irrational, the former pair not existent in MBTI, while the latter being behavioral in the system.
---
[1] - so remember, by Tactical/Strategic, I'm not referring to the same types as the Reinin dichotomy, though the two share 12 out of 16 types. SLE and SLI are therefore Tactical in this context, IEI and IEE are Strategic.
[2] - ILE, ESE, SLE, LSI, ILI, ESI, LSE, SLI
[3] - SEI, LII, EIE, IEI, SEE, LIE, IEE, EII
[4] - they quickly imagine something that works, then wait to be proven wrong or do it themselves at a latter time.
Last edited by The Ineffable; 11-13-2011 at 10:18 PM.
Sometimes. It's not 100% reliable and not good for testing.
-
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Reply With Quote
