Emotivist? Do Dichotomies Even Matter?

[justalitnerdxx]

I’m wondering if this example points more at someone being an Emotivist?

If others in the family home are upset or arguing amongst each other, the individual feels upset also, overwhelmed by the change in mood from positive to negative. The individual retreats from the scene and cries their heart out. Then, the family members reconcile, the individual comes back to the main living area, not upset anymore though a bit muted. The atmosphere is more settled. The individual is at ease again.

I did always consider myself to not be one, though on further reading and self reflection I am realising that I am quite easily affected by the background of interpersonal relationships; I can be quickly unsettled but I do come out of the negative mindset and loose my sense of fear and foreboding when the situation/event has passed. Whereas Constructivists from what I have read, seem to not be as affected by the emotional background. Not easily swayed from their state of mind and feeling until something major happens to disrupt this I.e. personal tragedy.

I maybe have this all wrong. I did consider EII was more likely (and therefore a constructivist) yet now I am trying to look from the outside at myself and perhaps the Ip Emotivist dichotomy is more accurate in describing my adaptivity when it comes to moods and reading the environment. Or dichotomies don’t really have much impact on a typing.

[The Reality Denialist]

EII's while they can be very emotive by their expression they strive to give very constructive feedback in the end.

Reading some LII comments on bad treatment and similar issues seems to be very emotive stance in the end (well they do intensely analyze things).

[justalitnerdxx]

It’s all just so confusing. I currently feel stuck. I’m probably overthinking all of this typing.

[Tigerfadder]

Some like to use dichotomies, I would not consider Reinin essential for typing since the understanding of most of them is lacking with real world examples.

[The Reality Denialist]

Constructivist tend to be very constructive when it comes to ethical/logical problems they encounter. It is usually something to strive for. To set something "straight".
Emotivist tend to vent out bit more but they also regulate atmosphere in their own ways.



For typing this seems quite bad. Just think about actions you take and reasons behind it. It is not obvious at all on brief glance.

[Sol]

Reinin's dichotomies does not matter

[Muddy]

Yeah I agree you are better off just ignoring all this dichotomy stuff. It just leads to confusion.

[Delilah]

@FlutteringShyxx
It might not be a good idea to use this particular dichotomy when you are in such state as you describe in your blog (sorry, i peeked).

Overall though i love the dichotomies and i think it's rather me who has understood them only partially rather than the dichotomies being baseless. I also agree with Troll Nr 007 comment about EIIs.

I actually tend to think that it is the emotivists that barrel through a positively/negatively charged atmosphere and emerge fine from it whereas the constructivists have problems with it (they rely on anchors). What do you think of this so far? Hope things turn out better for you btw (again referring to your blog)

[Bertrand]

they're based on natural mathematical patterns applied to socionics. its sort of like, "what if we slice x in the way we've seen y sliced." the problem is like some of these new recombinations are so novel words don't really capture semantically what they capture as a mathematical proposition, so you get stuff like constructivist/emotivist. getting a reinin dichotomy is sort of like taking the body of information captured by TIM and slicing it in a non standard way, like cutting a pizza longways and see what new strata emerge and comparing them against other TIM. they measure real phenonena but its sort of like if some languages have a thousand words for snow and others have one or two. in this case there's not enough words for the information that emerges, and its complicated by translation. its like we don't have a pre existing notion of certain things we can call up via a word, certain patterns of personality fall into that category. reinin was so thorough he produced all sorts of patterns we lack words for, so in a certain sense they're not real because they're not useful, but in another sense they're real but describe a point of view for which no words exist yet

[Bertrand]

yeah I feel like to use reinin dichotomies productively you need to forget whatever they're labeled and think of what dimensions they're capturing in an abstract sense. reliance on the semantic content alone is very shaky and more likely to distort than help. if this is beyond someone at the present time then they should definitely not bother with reinin and focus on more productive ways of reaching the goal

[Bertrand]

yeah they're the most common sense patterns, since J/D and M/S are 1:1 to existing dichotomies and aristocracy v democracy is only one order of magnitude more complicated, combining only two existing dichotomies. Once you get into asking/declaring and so forth it adds another layer of complexity, which is now it takes Si + logic and Se + ethics as one pole and places Si + ethics and Se + logic on the other end, one end is called asking the other declaring, and the idea is there exists a continuum between the two that people fall along and it describes an aspect of their personality. another way to frame it is (J+logic) or (D+ethics) = A. and (D+logic) or (J+ethics) = D. so you ask yourself what is it about Se logical types that is similar to Si ethical types? that is what is "meant" by "declaring"

if someone is clearly a logical type and clearly Se/Ni (i.e.: decisive) then you can probably conclude they are declaring. the problem is people try to work backward from some commonsense notion of what "declaring" means and conclude they are Se/Ni and logical (or J and ethical) based on whatever they personally understand "declaring" to mean (which could be anything since "declaring" is not that helpful by itself)

[Bertrand]

take LIE ILI SLE LSI and compare them to ESE SEI IEE EII, is there anything that seems to emerge? that is what declaring is meant to capture. its usually some desire to control the discussion or something to that effect, a kind of unilateral tendency in communication

LII ILE LSE SLI and EIE IEI SEE ESI comparatively tends to be receptive to "questions along the way" i.e.: invites more bilateral participation, this is what I think is meant by asking. this group tends to reformulate things rather than repeat itself if someone isn't getting it (although with varying degrees of hostility). a good example is EIE v SEI. SEI will stubbornly but politely repeat some basic rule in the face of contrary claims, even if the rule doesn't really accomplish the task of addressing the claim, whereas EIE might be a total asshole but will continue to try and dialogue forever in order to somehow connect, I think asking is more about trying to home in on where exactly "the question" is, whereas declaring is more about simply trying to get the other person to adopt a stance, which if done would would remove questions on a kind of faith. its interesting because duals are on either end, so you'd think the declaring type would just dominate, but its more like the asking type draws attention to precisely those aspects the declaring type is prepared to answer with (and receives the declarations adequately up front), so it smoothly functions. when conflict occurs its the opposite effect. duals assist eachother in transmitting information despite how it might look to outside dyads, usually dual communication involves both sides learning a lot, even though it may look like one person is dominating the other.. in conflict its the opposite no one is understanding eachother and they're doubling down on methods that make it worse, so the asking type doesn't receive the declaration and then "asks" at the wrong time and it spirals, so they sort of piss eachother off. eventually the shadow gets brought in because when each side is sufficiently agitated they have to go back and figure it out because they're being hit on their painful functions etc this is how you learn one way or the other, its just smooth vs painful

[Bertrand]

yeah the whole point is its a combination of existing dichotomies so if you pick out one group and say its this aspect of the pre-existing dichotomy from which it was drawn, then that is precisely what is intended. you might say reinin dichotomies are only new ways to look at fundamentally pre existing information, however I think the idea is once you have a handle on it you can shorthand the patterns and use it to synthesize, not necessarily analyze, more effectively. of course if everyone understood the dichotomies fully you could use it to analyze faster too, but the buy-in is likely too much as history has shown

[Bertrand]

yeah its sort of like a car, there's using it and then there's engineering it. the thing is someone needs to know what the hell is going on, but for most people that's not necessary. and if your aim is to get the most people to buy your car you don't need them to fully understand how it works, you just need them to like it, which entails only minimal necessary comprehension of the mechanics. in some sense they need to trust it would be taken seriously if they knew enough to question it, so someone has to work out all the details for even the masses to take a thing seriously. otherwise a competitor would just come in and criticize it into the ground and people would believe them because have a point. its sort of how like ear candles and stuff never really took off even though "they work" in the minds of some. I think this is why there's like this constant fight between believers in homeopathy and other scams and the "science only" types, its because on some level rigor has a kind of usefulness in that if it structurally can't, even in principle, be fully understood a segment of the population will reject it for that reason alone as fake. this is the whole genesis of the falsifiability principle and how its marketed now as a standalone requirement for adoption of anything, its sort of a proxy for threshold quality control

[Bertrand]

lol thats how I look at shadyhobbit's crazy socionics diagram that I still can't wrap my head around

thing is there's meaningless and there's appealing to the lowest common denominator and they're not the same thing

[Bertrand]

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...Diagrams-Draft

I think what hes doing is basically saying there's two poles with a mid point and at either pole there's two options which are either dark or light, if you meet in the middle with the corresponding shade it tells you what those two poles combine into, i.e.: intuitive irrationals are tacticians, sensory rationals are strategists and so forth

[Bertrand]

I think its accurate its just really unclear at first glance, if you go into his article he explains there's a method to parsing it that is not self evident in order to get the right information out of it

[silke]

I’m wondering if this example points more at someone being an Emotivist?

If others in the family home are upset or arguing amongst each other, the individual feels upset also, overwhelmed by the change in mood from positive to negative. The individual retreats from the scene and cries their heart out. Then, the family members reconcile, the individual comes back to the main living area, not upset anymore though a bit muted. The atmosphere is more settled. The individual is at ease again.

I did always consider myself to not be one, though on further reading and self reflection I am realising that I am quite easily affected by the background of interpersonal relationships; I can be quickly unsettled but I do come out of the negative mindset and loose my sense of fear and foreboding when the situation/event has passed. Whereas Constructivists from what I have read, seem to not be as affected by the emotional background. Not easily swayed from their state of mind and feeling until something major happens to disrupt this I.e. personal tragedy.

I maybe have this all wrong. I did consider EII was more likely (and therefore a constructivist) yet now I am trying to look from the outside at myself and perhaps the Ip Emotivist dichotomy is more accurate in describing my adaptivity when it comes to moods and reading the environment. Or dichotomies don’t really have much impact on a typing.

No, that's a constructivist way of responding. Constructivist types have either Fi or Fe as their "inert" functions. Inert function cannot influence the environment but rather they passively sink in whatever information is present around the person. Thus constructivist types will absorb emotional background of interpersonal relationships and display some-to-excessive sensitivity to it, while they may speak in impersonal tones (i.e. 'constructivism').