Calculator of Reinin dichotomies is now online!
Do you remember this theme where I posted the video about calculator of Reinin dichotomies?
Now you can enjoy the online-version!
http://happylife.kiev.ua/file_archiv...reinincalc.htm
ps: Special thanks to Kate F. (on socionic forums jj77)
pps: Who don't know what about that - you may go on the link:
http://happylife.kiev.ua/socionics/r...omy/reinincalc
I can now a happy life.
Oooh shiny gadget!~ *-*
@Cassandra I think 99.13% is more likely.
The spellings for "Don Quihote", "Robespiere", "Balzak", "Dostoevski" and "Gaben" makes me doubt this tool.Originally Posted by Cassandra
Lol, would you look at that:
Attachment 10565
It's interesting that most of the types that appear in there are from ppl that have an influence on my life.
I like it when people like results they like and then others can't be anything because tests are not reliable.
thanks for reminding me to like slugabed's post
I got the type I think I am as a result, but I don't think that means much. Especially considering you literally just get the type you give them via the dichotomies – based on your understanding of them. I just thought my result was funny in its overwhelming clarity.
Interesting how me posting a result can make someone react in such a salty and passive-aggressive way.
LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP
Some of the dichotomies directly contradict the types they are assigned to in certain context. Strategic/tactical for example. You can't go by the dictionary when doing these. I did use the dichotomies when I was new to eliminate other types but it was hard. I had to read and reread the descriptions then consider the context of how they could apply to me in different situations. At that point I was just curious what type was best fit in socionics so the only person I needed to convince was myself. If you are not clear on what each set of dichotomies mean you are probably not going to get anything useful (if you have no idea of your type in mind). Even then it is iffy because things are not this clearly divided irl.
Strategic thinking can be more futuristic, long term, sometimes visionary. It reads the patterns, projecting into the future and where it is going (goal). Tactical is more in the here and now. It deals with the short term ways to achieve the goal. It is the more active principal. I had to let go of word associations to work with these.
IEI are supposed to be tactical > strategic but in the real world I can be both but more often I use strategy and let others deal with the implementation. Strategic is general and tactics are the details as I see it. So how is SLE the more strategic and IEI the more tactical? I will ask @Cassandra specifically since she answered tactics on this.
Strategy: a high level plan to achieve one or more goals under conditions of uncertainty. (one could debate that strategy not just a synonym for plan, we’ll save that for another time).
A tactic is a conceptual action implemented as one or more specific tasks (fair enough).
So formally speaking the text book definitions from military science and business books goes like this, a strategy is a plan that is executed via a variety of tactics. The military goes on to say that grand tactics are large scale tactics, and grand strategy is the political strategy that provides overall direction to military strategy (i.e. terrorists bad, China OK, Canada Harmless).
Gee, that’s actually kinda boring. So how does this help you? Where is the salient advantage in these pedantic semantics?
First, the common sense is strategy and tactics are interchangeable words for a solution to the problem. Strategy and tactics have a yin yang relationship in defining each other – bigger long term picture relative to immediate small scale.
Stay with me.
Tactical means winning battle today. Strategy means winning the war. But the battle had a strategy, broken up into tactics utilized by each team. But each team leader had a strategy, that was adapted in execution by a strategic utilization of appropriate tactics for the resistance and challenges faced. Yin / Yang. Once you leave the textbook, the only difference between strategy and tactics is your perspective. Boxers and quarterbacks have strategies for minutes worth of action. Political strategies have tactics that take months to execute.
The difference between strategy and tactics in everyday language is simply to show the short term vs long term perspectives to the task at hand. That would make grand strategy where strategies interact, and grand tactics where different tactics interact.
So what? How does this help you? (finally there)
First, conversationally it is good to simply know the effective semantic difference between strategy and tactics. Hopefully your now there.
Secondly, in order to be truly successful, you need to have good strategy and good tactics. You need to understand the role of each.
http://strategicscience.org/strategy...at-you-expect/
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
Yeah, it is kind of useless for anyone who already knows the dichotomies that align with each type. Took me seconds without any tweaking to get this result. Why did you leave so much room for doubt when you could have got a perfect score like me?!I got the type I think I am as a result, but I don't think that means much. Especially considering you literally just get the type you give them via the dichotomies – based on your understanding of them. I just thought my result was funny in its overwhelming clarity.
Interesting how me posting a result can make someone react in such a salty and passive-aggressive way.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
Attachment 10569
Kinda weird that some of you have a definite type with 100%
human beings are more ambiguous than that
Hm your results are like that because you choose the middle for a lot of the dichotomies.
And according to Reinin, everyone falls into either dichotomy.
Fair point
I doubt that individuals will fit clearly into a theory about dichotomies. It would be more distinct if there were just checkboxes. Instead the calculator's purpose is to allow and show ambiguity.
Yeah there is no 100% in the real world. I was making a point by random clicking according to what I know it is looking for. When I read the descriptions I can see myself as both, on quite a few, depending on the situation. My results are not to be taken serious.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
You are getting at the core problem of the dichotomies:
Taking them too literally and understanding them based on the common understanding of the term(s).
According to Reinin, the main difference between Strategic and Tactical is not long-term vs short-term, but rather:
Goal vs Method.
Tactical types have goals rather unsettled or flexible and match them to the methods or situation at hand, whereas Strategic types have their goals settled and the methods unsettled: "I will do whatever it takes to accomplish/reach XYZ!" For a Tactical type, the Goal is flexible. For a Strategic type, the Goal is firm and settled.
The strength of the Tactical person is being able to choose and use the right/best methods for accomplishing goals; downside: their goals are often vague and unsettled. The strength of the Strategic person is having a clearly set goal they can focus on; downside: their methods are often vague and unsettled.
I chose Tactical, because as a Tactical person my goals are often rather flexible. I adapt my goals to the situation at hand. Based on how a situation is evolving, I may change my goal. My goals are never truly set in stone. I can benefit from someone giving me clear goals and incentives. Then, I can be quite good at accomplishing said goal. But again, often times I don't have a very particular kind of goal in mind. So that is why I am probably achieving less than a Strategic type, who will try to find any method to reach their goal(s) (especially as someone who is also Te PoLR). It is not like I never have any goals, I do. I come up with future long-term goals to work towards. But again, they are never set in stone. When something changes, a situation or a mindset, I can be quick to re-adapt the goal to fit those changes. A Strategic person is much more single-minded about their goals and would do whatever it takes to get there. For Tactical types, their goals often keep evolving.
Strategic types can have periods of not having any clearly defined goals, but once they do nothing (or only A LOT of hardship) can bring them off their path. Tactical types can have future long-term goals and accomplish them, but they tend to be much more flexible about those goals.
P.S: ... at least this is how I understand it.
Maybe Reinin dichotomies are Te polr/ignoring...
Can you also see how you are strategic? Ever had a clear goal in mind that you could not be swayed from? Single Minded purpose that propelled you forward? Have you not wanted anything enough that you endured hardship to achieve it? I know you are younger so you can ignore that last one. I think circumstances and upbringing can be a big influence. I have had to adapt a lot but was still able to achieve what I set out to achieve. It was the end result that mattered most. Not how I got there. I just had to get creative to do it.
It is all really vague since nothing is set in stone. Unexpected events are a given in life. The more you want something the more likely you are to find a way to get it, weaving your way around any obstacle. Is that strategic by your interpretation? The less you want something the less energy you will expend toward it but sometimes you get there anyway. Would that be tactics?
For me it is about how much I want something that will determine the course I take. I can also abandon that "goal" if I see it is not going to be in the best interest for me or sometimes those I care about. Explaining why I abandoned a goal does not always go over well when others have an expectation that you will follow through. Humans are kind of forced to adapt, even if they are not adaptable by nature, so being able to is neccessary, even if you do it grudgingly.
I guess I am pretty fluid when it comes to goals. Sometimes I don't even know what I want, so I just sit in the void until some inspiration takes hold, or I am forced to make a move. I know people hate when I say wait but sometimes that is all you can do. :/
I am kind of rambly today. I woke up that way but I am not even awake yet. I may revise this later.
“It is strange how new and unexpected conditions bring out unguessed ability to meet them.”
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
That's why I don't like nor use them overtlyMaybe Reinin dichotomies are Te polr/ignoring...
This sounds like Tactical to me. And I can relate to it.I can also abandon that "goal" if I see it is not going to be in the best interest for me or sometimes those I care about. Explaining why I abandoned a goal does not always go over well when others have an expectation that you will follow through. Humans are kind of forced to adapt, even if they are not adaptable by nature, so being able to is neccessary, even if you do it grudgingly.
I guess I am pretty fluid when it comes to goals. Sometimes I don't even know what I want, so I just sit in the void until some inspiration takes hold, or I am forced to make a move. I know people hate when I say wait but sometimes that is all you can do. :/
I get how you have difficulties with logically reconciling the long-term view of Ni with a Tactical nature.
But what you were describing is pretty much how the two aspects would interact.
Yes, quite right. Good explanation of the two.You are getting at the core problem of the dichotomies:
Taking them too literally and understanding them based on the common understanding of the term(s).
According to Reinin, the main difference between Strategic and Tactical is not long-term vs short-term, but rather:
Goal vs Method.
Tactical types have goals rather unsettled or flexible and match them to the methods or situation at hand, whereas Strategic types have their goals settled and the methods unsettled: "I will do whatever it takes to accomplish/reach XYZ!" For a Tactical type, the Goal is flexible. For a Strategic type, the Goal is firm and settled.
The strength of the Tactical person is being able to choose and use the right/best methods for accomplishing goals; downside: their goals are often vague and unsettled. The strength of the Strategic person is having a clearly set goal they can focus on; downside: their methods are often vague and unsettled.
I chose Tactical, because as a Tactical person my goals are often rather flexible. I adapt my goals to the situation at hand. Based on how a situation is evolving, I may change my goal. My goals are never truly set in stone. I can benefit from someone giving me clear goals and incentives. Then, I can be quite good at accomplishing said goal. But again, often times I don't have a very particular kind of goal in mind. So that is why I am probably achieving less than a Strategic type, who will try to find any method to reach their goal(s) (especially as someone who is also Te PoLR). It is not like I never have any goals, I do. I come up with future long-term goals to work towards. But again, they are never set in stone. When something changes, a situation or a mindset, I can be quick to re-adapt the goal to fit those changes. A Strategic person is much more single-minded about their goals and would do whatever it takes to get there. For Tactical types, their goals often keep evolving.
Strategic types can have periods of not having any clearly defined goals, but once they do nothing (or only A LOT of hardship) can bring them off their path. Tactical types can have future long-term goals and accomplish them, but they tend to be much more flexible about those goals.
P.S: ... at least this is how I understand it.
----------------------
The degree to which anyone fits any given reinin dichotomy varies a lot, and I've found it best to just completely ignore the ones that are vague or hard to tell in someone, and only look at what is absolutely clear. You only need to be clear on a few to narrow down type anyway. Some dichotomies are so vague in their explanations that I don't know how anyone decides between them. Others are very easily misunderstood. Also, I don't think that there is a 100% correlation between the types and the dichotomies they generally match. In other words it's possible for someone to be a given type and not identify with one of the dichotomies that is associated with that type. If this happens with several, then they should probably rethink their type, but having one out of place, or a few that are really hard to call shouldn't be something that causes someone to retype.
Also, not all of the dichotomies are of equal value. Some I find pretty much worthless and very difficult to distinguish in most people, others seem to be much more indicative of type and far more useful.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
