Experimental Reinin dichotomies test
This is somewhat inspired by some of the earlier tests on this forum and the Reinin charts of @Smilingeyes. This test clearly has its limitations even if the Reinin dichotomies are valid (e.g. the format of the test, the fact the dichotomies aren't well explained or necessarily to get an objective understanding of, and because some of the traits at face value may well appear to clash with how the Ego block Information Elements are commonly defined.
It is probably a good idea to write down your answers (and considered alternative answers). In your response, you could also bold parts that you identify with etc.
Decide between A1 and A2, then between B1 and B2.
Then decide whether you identify more with your A choice or your B choice before moving to the next stage. If you find this difficult, instead Decide between C1 and C2, then between D1 and D2. (You could also attempt this alternative step if trying the test again).
-Easily aware of the boundaries between their and others' resources.
-Guard their interests from intrusions, and their reaction to such intrusions may be quite sharp.
-“I won't abandon my interests just because my resources are inadequate, but simply work towards improving my resources until they ARE adequate.”
-Perceive events in an episodic manner – discrete states rather than continuous changes.
-More inclined to say how stages A, B and C are.
-Describe events in a general manner and by comparing them to other similar events.
-More inclined to talk of properties and structures of reality.
-The stories of statics usually involve one constant main character.
-Good at noticing emotional background and perceive the emotional aspect (particularly 'fun') separate from the activity.
-'Getting to know someone' happens naturally, and they are well aware of the purpose(s) for which they are meeting. The proper emotional distance is easily established, adapted/regulated, and manipulated, and they easily decrease distance through their emotional 'brilliance'. A person's name (and other formalities) are peripheral to their relation with and interest in them, and thus they don't care much about formal introductions..
-Not inclined to deduce 'objective truths' from their own and others' experiences – everything is relative. This relativity is perceived as an extenuation of the differing beliefs, opinions, intentions, etc. of each person. Accordingly, another person's actions are judged as correct or incorrect according to a set of subjective criteria. They attempt to compare others' views to their own, and to explain their own views in order to make sure that all parties understand the concepts being spoken of.
-They are inclined to propose (or impose) another conception of the situation ('look at it this way'). If they think something is done incorrectly, they will ask WHY it was done that way. When talking about optimums, they are inclined to do it subjectively ('optimum compared to what?').
-“Fun is involvement, active participation; a state of constant excitement that one cannot confuse with leisure or rest.” “I have my own ideas about how things should be done – a 'mind of my own' – but so does everyone else.”
-Easily aware of the boundaries between their and others' interests.
-Protect their resources to the point of conflict, and their reaction may be unduly strong.
-“If I know I can't do something, I won't and will forget all about it.”
-Perceive events in a continuous sequence – continuous changes rather than discrete states.
-More inclined to say how stage A leads to stage B, and how stage B leads to stage C.
-Describe events in a specific and concrete manner.
-More inclined to talk of movements and interactions of reality.
-The stories of dynamics usually involve multiple main characters.
-Bad at noticing emotional background and do not separate the emotional aspect (particularly 'fun') from the activity.
-Acquaintance with others is established by ritual (e.g., introduction), and they prefer if the context of interaction is externally set (eg, by a mediator (think 'arranged marriages') or situation) so that they can skip the first phases and begin closer interaction. They approach others through stages defined by 'rules' and 'rituals', which may be created by themselves and/or already existing; thus, they are very aware of the stages of the process of acquaintance – e.g., when a person is no longer a stranger. The title, name, and any other information about the other person are considered important, and for this reason formal introduction is important.
-Inclined to believe there are 'objective truths' – the truth is not always relative. Therefore, they believe that there are two types of actions/perspectives: those which are subjective (connected with personal preferences and motivations) and those which are objective (only one 'correct' or 'best' way of doing something). Whether something is correct or not is judged by comparing it with what they see as 'objectively correct'. In disagreement, they first attempt to make sure that the other person understands the concepts and terms 'correctly'.
-They are inclined to offer (or impose) what they see as the 'best' or 'correct' way of doing something ('it should be done like this'). If they think something is done incorrectly, they ask WHO did it that way. When speaking of optimums, they are inclined to do so objectively (the 'absolute' optimum).
-“It is difficult for me to differentiate between activity/work and fun; work is necessarily fun – without an element of entertainment, it would be impossible” “If something is being done the wrong way? Oy! IMO, there is only one proper way to 'hammer a nail'”
-Easily aware of the boundaries between their and others' resources.
-Guard their interests from intrusions, and their reaction to such intrusions may be quite sharp.
-“I won't abandon my interests just because my resources are inadequate, but simply work towards improving my resources until they ARE adequate.”
-Perceive events in a continuous sequence – continuous changes rather than discrete states.
-More inclined to say how stage A leads to stage B, and how stage B leads to stage C.
-Describe events in a specific and concrete manner.
-More inclined to talk of movements and interactions of reality.
-The stories of dynamics usually involve multiple main characters.
-Good at noticing emotional background and perceive the emotional aspect (particularly 'fun') separate from the activity.
-'Getting to know someone' happens naturally, and they are well aware of the purpose(s) for which they are meeting. The proper emotional distance is easily established, adapted/regulated, and manipulated, and they easily decrease distance through their emotional 'brilliance'. A person's name (and other formalities) are peripheral to their relation with and interest in them, and thus they don't care much about formal introductions..
-Not inclined to deduce 'objective truths' from their own and others' experiences – everything is relative. This relativity is perceived as an extenuation of the differing beliefs, opinions, intentions, etc. of each person. Accordingly, another person's actions are judged as correct or incorrect according to a set of subjective criteria. They attempt to compare others' views to their own, and to explain their own views in order to make sure that all parties understand the concepts being spoken of.
-They are inclined to propose (or impose) another conception of the situation ('look at it this way'). If they think something is done incorrectly, they will ask WHY it was done that way. When talking about optimums, they are inclined to do it subjectively ('optimum compared to what?').
-“Fun is involvement, active participation; a state of constant excitement that one cannot confuse with leisure or rest.” “I have my own ideas about how things should be done – a 'mind of my own' – but so does everyone else.”
-Easily aware of the boundaries between their and others' interests.
-Protect their resources to the point of conflict, and their reaction may be unduly strong.
-“If I know I can't do something, I won't and will forget all about it.”
-Perceive events in an episodic manner – discrete states rather than continuous changes.
-More inclined to say how stages A, B and C are.
-Describe events in a general manner and by comparing them to other similar events.
-More inclined to talk of properties and structures of reality.
-The stories of statics usually involve one constant main character.
-Bad at noticing emotional background and do not separate the emotional aspect (particularly 'fun') from the activity.
-Acquaintance with others is established by ritual (e.g., introduction), and they prefer if the context of interaction is externally set (eg, by a mediator (think 'arranged marriages') or situation) so that they can skip the first phases and begin closer interaction. They approach others through stages defined by 'rules' and 'rituals', which may be created by themselves and/or already existing; thus, they are very aware of the stages of the process of acquaintance – e.g., when a person is no longer a stranger. The title, name, and any other information about the other person are considered important, and for this reason formal introduction is important.
-Inclined to believe there are 'objective truths' – the truth is not always relative. Therefore, they believe that there are two types of actions/perspectives: those which are subjective (connected with personal preferences and motivations) and those which are objective (only one 'correct' or 'best' way of doing something). Whether something is correct or not is judged by comparing it with what they see as 'objectively correct'. In disagreement, they first attempt to make sure that the other person understands the concepts and terms 'correctly'.
-They are inclined to offer (or impose) what they see as the 'best' or 'correct' way of doing something ('it should be done like this'). If they think something is done incorrectly, they ask WHO did it that way. When speaking of optimums, they are inclined to do so objectively (the 'absolute' optimum).
-“It is difficult for me to differentiate between activity/work and fun; work is necessarily fun – without an element of entertainment, it would be impossible” “If something is being done the wrong way? Oy! IMO, there is only one proper way to 'hammer a nail'”
-Easily aware of the boundaries between their and others' resources.
-Guard their interests from intrusions, and their reaction to such intrusions may be quite sharp.
-“I won't abandon my interests just because my resources are inadequate, but simply work towards improving my resources until they ARE adequate.”
-Tend to concentrate foremost on the emotional background of interaction, with 'business' a secondary concern.
-Prefer the new and novel over the old and known.
-Information perceived as unprofessional or low-quality can leave them indifferent.
-Have greater difficulty disassociating from requests for action or consideration than from others' emotions and experiences.
-“If a conversation is emotionally negative, I consider it wasted.”
-Good at noticing emotional background and perceive the emotional aspect (particularly 'fun') separate from the activity.
-'Getting to know someone' happens naturally, and they are well aware of the purpose(s) for which they are meeting. The proper emotional distance is easily established, adapted/regulated, and manipulated, and they easily decrease distance through their emotional 'brilliance'. A person's name (and other formalities) are peripheral to their relation with and interest in them, and thus they don't care much about formal introductions..
-Not inclined to deduce 'objective truths' from their own and others' experiences – everything is relative. This relativity is perceived as an extenuation of the differing beliefs, opinions, intentions, etc. of each person. Accordingly, another person's actions are judged as correct or incorrect according to a set of subjective criteria. They attempt to compare others' views to their own, and to explain their own views in order to make sure that all parties understand the concepts being spoken of.
-They are inclined to propose (or impose) another conception of the situation ('look at it this way'). If they think something is done incorrectly, they will ask WHY it was done that way. When talking about optimums, they are inclined to do it subjectively ('optimum compared to what?').
-“Fun is involvement, active participation; a state of constant excitement that one cannot confuse with leisure or rest.” “I have my own ideas about how things should be done – a 'mind of my own' – but so does everyone else.”
-Easily aware of the boundaries between their and others' interests.
-Protect their resources to the point of conflict, and their reaction may be unduly strong.
-“If I know I can't do something, I won't and will forget all about it.”
-Tend to minimize the emotional elements of interaction, preferring to focus on the 'business' elements.
-Have emotional 'anchors' (eg, books, films, places) which they use to support their internal emotional state.
-Can become 'emotionally hooked', and can have a strong reaction to a particular part or section regardless of their feelings towards the entirety.
-Have greater difficulty disassociating from others' emotions and experiences than from requests for action or consideration.
-“I prefer when people offer concrete solutions instead of comfort or sympathy.”
-Bad at noticing emotional background and do not separate the emotional aspect (particularly 'fun') from the activity.
-Acquaintance with others is established by ritual (e.g., introduction), and they prefer if the context of interaction is externally set (eg, by a mediator (think 'arranged marriages') or situation) so that they can skip the first phases and begin closer interaction. They approach others through stages defined by 'rules' and 'rituals', which may be created by themselves and/or already existing; thus, they are very aware of the stages of the process of acquaintance – e.g., when a person is no longer a stranger. The title, name, and any other information about the other person are considered important, and for this reason formal introduction is important.
-Inclined to believe there are 'objective truths' – the truth is not always relative. Therefore, they believe that there are two types of actions/perspectives: those which are subjective (connected with personal preferences and motivations) and those which are objective (only one 'correct' or 'best' way of doing something). Whether something is correct or not is judged by comparing it with what they see as 'objectively correct'. In disagreement, they first attempt to make sure that the other person understands the concepts and terms 'correctly'.
-They are inclined to offer (or impose) what they see as the 'best' or 'correct' way of doing something ('it should be done like this'). If they think something is done incorrectly, they ask WHO did it that way. When speaking of optimums, they are inclined to do so objectively (the 'absolute' optimum).
-“It is difficult for me to differentiate between activity/work and fun; work is necessarily fun – without an element of entertainment, it would be impossible” “If something is being done the wrong way? Oy! IMO, there is only one proper way to 'hammer a nail'”
-Easily aware of the boundaries between their and others' resources.
-Guard their interests from intrusions, and their reaction to such intrusions may be quite sharp.
-“I won't abandon my interests just because my resources are inadequate, but simply work towards improving my resources until they ARE adequate.”
-Tend to minimize the emotional elements of interaction, preferring to focus on the 'business' elements.
-Have emotional 'anchors' (eg, books, films, places) which they use to support their internal emotional state.
-Can become 'emotionally hooked', and can have a strong reaction to a particular part or section regardless of their feelings towards the entirety.
-Have greater difficulty disassociating from others' emotions and experiences than from requests for action or consideration.
-“I prefer when people offer concrete solutions instead of comfort or sympathy.”
-Good at noticing emotional background and perceive the emotional aspect (particularly 'fun') separate from the activity.
-'Getting to know someone' happens naturally, and they are well aware of the purpose(s) for which they are meeting. The proper emotional distance is easily established, adapted/regulated, and manipulated, and they easily decrease distance through their emotional 'brilliance'. A person's name (and other formalities) are peripheral to their relation with and interest in them, and thus they don't care much about formal introductions..
-Not inclined to deduce 'objective truths' from their own and others' experiences – everything is relative. This relativity is perceived as an extenuation of the differing beliefs, opinions, intentions, etc. of each person. Accordingly, another person's actions are judged as correct or incorrect according to a set of subjective criteria. They attempt to compare others' views to their own, and to explain their own views in order to make sure that all parties understand the concepts being spoken of.
-They are inclined to propose (or impose) another conception of the situation ('look at it this way'). If they think something is done incorrectly, they will ask WHY it was done that way. When talking about optimums, they are inclined to do it subjectively ('optimum compared to what?').
-“Fun is involvement, active participation; a state of constant excitement that one cannot confuse with leisure or rest.” “I have my own ideas about how things should be done – a 'mind of my own' – but so does everyone else.”
-Easily aware of the boundaries between their and others' interests.
-Protect their resources to the point of conflict, and their reaction may be unduly strong.
-“If I know I can't do something, I won't and will forget all about it.”
-Tend to concentrate foremost on the emotional background of interaction, with 'business' a secondary concern.
-Prefer the new and novel over the old and known.
-Information perceived as unprofessional or low-quality can leave them indifferent.
-Have greater difficulty disassociating from requests for action or consideration than from others' emotions and experiences.
-“If a conversation is emotionally negative, I consider it wasted.”
-Bad at noticing emotional background and do not separate the emotional aspect (particularly 'fun') from the activity.
-Acquaintance with others is established by ritual (e.g., introduction), and they prefer if the context of interaction is externally set (eg, by a mediator (think 'arranged marriages') or situation) so that they can skip the first phases and begin closer interaction. They approach others through stages defined by 'rules' and 'rituals', which may be created by themselves and/or already existing; thus, they are very aware of the stages of the process of acquaintance – e.g., when a person is no longer a stranger. The title, name, and any other information about the other person are considered important, and for this reason formal introduction is important.
-Inclined to believe there are 'objective truths' – the truth is not always relative. Therefore, they believe that there are two types of actions/perspectives: those which are subjective (connected with personal preferences and motivations) and those which are objective (only one 'correct' or 'best' way of doing something). Whether something is correct or not is judged by comparing it with what they see as 'objectively correct'. In disagreement, they first attempt to make sure that the other person understands the concepts and terms 'correctly'.
-They are inclined to offer (or impose) what they see as the 'best' or 'correct' way of doing something ('it should be done like this'). If they think something is done incorrectly, they ask WHO did it that way. When speaking of optimums, they are inclined to do so objectively (the 'absolute' optimum).
-“It is difficult for me to differentiate between activity/work and fun; work is necessarily fun – without an element of entertainment, it would be impossible” “If something is being done the wrong way? Oy! IMO, there is only one proper way to 'hammer a nail'”
Reply With Quote