Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Other results of the Reinin model - resurrected (with edits)

  1. #1
    Smilingeyes's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    7 Post(s)
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Other results of the Reinin model - resurrected (with edits)

    The mathematico-mechanical socionics thread was something I was mainly interested as an experimental device.

    The Personal-tracker device thread is something that's so useful and just doesn't fail in practical use that I already consider anyone who disputes it a complete intellectual failure. Just try it. If you understand the functions, you won't fail.

    But then there's some other stuff that's derived from the Reinin material, that I still find interesting on a serious way but of which I'm not quite certain how to interpret it. I must still repeat that the dichotomies as the functions are not completely understood and they require a level of intuition to understand even if there are a number of mechanical tools available.


    There is a relation with the T/F with actual social activity, social feeling and motivation. The N/S dichotomy seems to instead be mostly related to personal skill /survival / observation.

    Basically Fe & Te use people as tools.
    Ti and Fi accept roles according to the will of the environment.

    The first interpetation seems to be that dynamics are manipulators whereas statics are dutiful.

    But there's more.

    The EPs require a lot of energy to be able to assume a duty. They get thrills out of sometimes doing something that's wanted from them. But basically they usually just do their own thing.

    The IJs are mostly consumed by duty and require a lot of energy to gain release from it.

    The IPs usually just analyze the environment and it takes up a lot of energy to manipulate the people in it.

    The EJs can't help being social and manipulating things, it takes a lot of energy to make themselves stay away from the situation.


    The fact that something requires a lot of energy does not mean it's momentary, it can be a basic strategy for a long period. (Personal experience on this, both of own behaviour and behaviour of others.)

    Sidenote: I ran into a statement somewhere by someone that introverts are more complete than extroverts. A value-loaded statement, what BS!

    Next observation:

    Socionics handles social roles, therefore it's interesting to look at what's the modelled response to actual socionics according to each temperament.

    EP: Easily just do things and ignore it completely. Use socionics as a way to claim that you're supposed to do what you were already doing. Momentarily try to rechoose your type but quickly return what you remember to give you the best kicks. "A social role feels great!"
    Action mode 1: Make others change type by force to supply you with a social role.
    Action mode 2: Enjoy the social duty and, keep it up as long as you can.

    IJ: Easily pick up a socionic type, the whole environment seems to tell you to keep using the type. Takes up a lot of energy to break type behaviour. "A social role is an all-immersing duty!"
    Action mode 1: Keep performing your social role, only change behaviour if the input to do so is overwhelming.
    Action mode 2: Act impulsively, chaotically, doing whatever seems best, act out, ignore sociality completely.

    IP: Type behaviour seems the smart thing to do in current situation. It's useful to be able to break type behaviour in certain situations and one must be able to do it if it's really needed. "A social role is a necessary skill."
    Action mode 1: Seek the absolutely best social role in a situation, perform when feeling certain of the situation.
    Action mode 2: Freely act socially, the situation is static and friendly and you're in control.

    EJ: Type behaviour seems to be a habit, something that's just natural. Understanding why type behaviour needs to be broken requires a lot of energy. "A social role is a sometimes annoying habit."
    Action mode 1: Manipulate others into a suitable social role in relation to yourself. Change role and mode when needed.
    Action mode 2: The situation is oppressive, there's nothing you can do but watch, accept that you have no role in what's happening.

    From a static's point of view it's a success to maintain type in face of opposition, a sign of power and skill.
    From a dynamic's point of view it's a failure to maintain type in face of opposition, a sign of bad character and stupidity.

    To a dynamic, the static represents a stable environment that releases him from responsibility of trying to constantly evaluate his social behaviour and someone whose dependent on his judgement of the social situation.
    To a static, the dynamic represents a wealth of new possibilities and experiences and a reliable source of social need.

    This seems to affect what claims people make about socionics.
    As a personal note, I've been experimenting with changing my type for a while now, been doing it for years actually but more conciously after I found the Reinin dichotomies. It feels good and it's something I think might be developed into a form of therapy. Actually I think it already is an underlying principle of behavioural psychotherapy. There's an obvious connection between remaining in a situationally harmful type and many social & psychological illnesses, something that's hinted at in several situations but usually with a severe misunderstanding of what a psychological illness represents. Usually I'd suggest restraining oneself from diagnosing psychological disorders unless it's what your employer pays you for.


    Fun stuff about combining dichotomies.
    Process, negative & narrator. (and the opposites)

    EP: "You suck!" or "Everything I'm doing is perfect, isn't it?"
    EJ: "What am I doing wrong?" or "You're great and I bet you could be even better!"
    IP: "You're doing this and this wrong, you're hopeless!" or "I'm perfect, aren't I?"
    IJ: "Why do I suck so much?" or "I need to show you how it's done!"

    Note the glories of dualism on that one!


    What is it with the strategy-tactical dichotomy and people anyway... So far I've seen people call the following groups strategic:
    1. N
    2. J
    3. TJ + FP
    4. STJ + NTP + NFJ + SFP

    and their opposites tactical.

    Well I've consistently used everywhere the Reinin dichotomy of
    NP + SJ = tactical
    NJ + SP = strategic
    If it would turn out that even Reinin himself had used those names for something else and that that division was wrong in that sense it wouldn't really change anything because those are merely the names of cathegories. You have to be able to understand the actual qualities and attributes and just consistently refer to the same quality with the same name. If someone wishes to link to some original Reinin source that says that Reinin used different names, I'm willing to consider them for the sake of consistency.

    I'd like to point out though that even people who use Reinin dichotomies disagree with some of the names of the cathegories. I've seen ie. results-process been called objective-subjective which considering that it's all in one's head anyway and that there's no such thing as objective in our minds is a pretty damn stupid way to name cathegories. Doesn't still make it wrong. Call it the rabbit - tortoise dichotomy if you find it to your liking. Just names.

    I personally can only act strategically when I'm doing the ENTj or ENFj thing and am quite tactical when I'm ESTj or ESFj. (Either subtype in all cases.) But that's just observing a quality in myself while acting in a certain way and connecting it to the meaning of the activity within each type.

    And about gamma sensorics being strategic... Does anyone really think that ENTjs are tactical???

    As for the idea of type not changing...

    Personally I'm willing to go one better and claim that people can change not just their own type but force others to change theirs.

    The temperaments though, I'm having some serious difficulty in acting like an IP, IJ or EP. Might be that's doable as well, but I'd seriously suggest that all the ENTps and INTjs would start considering those four as the immutable types and start searching for reasons why it's so. Might be easier than with 16 types. Even 4 immutable types would be a bit of an aberration though. Nature doesn't usually do modular whereas the human psyche tends to try to cathegorize things in such a way.

    Most of the "serious" socionists who claim that type doesn't change are in full defense mode when someone asks them to actually define what they mean about type and refuse to do so. It's basically the only way to maintain the illusion and continue the loony-talk.

    Note example how type is examined behaviouristically but yet they claim that type is not a behaviouristic property. The social relations are considered the golden standard of measuring the type but social masks aren't considered and relations that permanently change after some momentous experience changes the behaviour of one person in the relationship. Surprise, even the basic social relations change. The typical example I run into is a patient who used to be a drug addict or criminally inclined in other ways, then a sudden experience like getting religious or finding a good girl friend changes their activity completely. They renounce their old behaviour, their old friends and find behaviour that previously seemed positive and enforcing suddenly negative and a turn-off!
    The suggestion that type doesn't change leads into paradoxes, fantasy stories and apparently even visual typing by body traits.

    I could go on and on about the faults and errors that the "constant type-hypothesis" creates but I'm not going to. It's a sieve, a turkey, a bucket of suck, a dead horse, an albatross necklace. Type changes


    More pretty things from Reinin...

    Strategic + cheerfulness + positivism and their opposites

    Alpha + beta are the quadras of upheaval within society, great change, risk and danger while gamma & delta are the conservative upholder quadras.

    Within alpha+beta tactical behaviour is positive, whoever gets any short-term victories is a winner because you can't forecast the end-results.
    Distrust in the environment.

    Within gamma+delta strategic behaviour is positive because the environment doesn't change. You can freely do momentarily harmful things for long-term profit. Trust in the environment.


    Resolute +

    calculating, strategy, obstinacy and narrator and their opposites.

    If we consider large-scale social activity (the resolute cathegory) which is close to defining the political environment we find ways of doing politics.

    the large-scale planners (strategic) who want to really change things:
    Calculating, careful reformer:
    Mode 1 (obstinate taciturn): Obsessed about doing what people want and achieving the most popular result.
    Mode 2 (compliant narrator): Tell people whatever seems to work to maintain power. Construct a calculated lie.

    Carefree, true believer in his political agenda, major poorly designed changes:
    Mode 1(compliant narrator): Try out large-scale suggestions until something seems popular. Usually tested with the cabinet until a suitable one is found for public presentation.
    Mode 2(obstinate taciturn): Tester of public opinion. Is everyone really along in the boat? Needs demonstrations of public faith to maintain image of power. Uses public opinion to bash opposition to silence.

    the political operators who are just seeking their fortune in politics (tactical):
    Carefree power-tripping politics:
    Mode 1(obstinate narrator): The politician uses an iron fist to crush opposition. Victory is about being the only one still functioning on the field.
    Mode 2(compliant taciturn): Flailing around, trying to do things one hopes the public would like, trying to milk gratefulness from the public and other politicians.

    Calculating careful manipulator of personal interest.
    Mode 1(obstinate narrator): The politician is intent on arguing opposition to submission. A passionate orator who will not act himself if there is any opposition. A leader of reason and sensible causes.
    Mode 2(compliant taciturn): Ready to join any power block that gives suitable compensation. A political hang-around and a compromise candidate for opposing parties.

    NOTE: Leaders who deny their responsibility of the grand scale events and only want an easy life don't really conform to the above. They don't really realise they're in power and see their mandate just as a chance for self-expression.

    EDIT: In situations in which there are only a few important power blocks, important economic factors etc. "judicious" behaviour can be found in the political field. Historically these circumstances were more common even at the top of power. Ironically most political researchers, journalists and historians, not to mention a huge number of the voting populace live under those conditions and therefore have a significant difficulty in understanding what actually DOING politics in a democratic country is like.

    Edit 2: If anyone proficient in historical typing (*cough* *cough* Expat *cough*) is interested in suggesting a type for some of the great power gamer politicians (the Iron Chancellor, the Great Cardinal and others) I'd be very interested.


    At least you got the EJ part right. Heck... The fact that I can use 'Feeling' if I want to and act ESFj or ENFj is exactly what I'm saying. But recognizing one's feelings and being able to discuss and speculate on them logically does not make one a 'Feeling' type. Politeness and speaking about one's feelings can be a nice tool by the use of which to make people more available as tools themselves. If one wants to make an impression on ISFj girls it's practically required. They want to feel wanted and needed and they can get awfully irritated if you simply state that you'd like to have some sex, please. They don't go for the gushy, gooey poetry stuff but they'd like you to sometimes mention that you love them. Courtesy is a necessary evil to learn.

    If anything, Cone's observations serve to promote the idea that quadra movement is possible and that all, illusionary, semi-dual and contrary relations are just dual relations waiting to happen. It's not an interesting piece of trivia about contrary relations but an intrinsic property of the system.

    Some reflection on what an ESTj is, might be in order at this point.
    An ESTj is an EJ engaged in something he perceives to be his duty, something he must personally accomplish. If obstacles arise in his way or if the meaning of his duty is made questionable by the environment in other ways, the ESTj will either try again and again and again or he will become introspective, start to feel threatened, a failure. He will move to protect himself, remove himself from the society to try to perceive what he did wrong. This is where his Introverted Sensing becomes prominent and what is connected to Ganin's suggestion of the hidden agenda of being perfect. He will refine his arguments and tools during this period. When at some point he feels he's reached a goal he will either return to doing his duty or feel a sense of release. He will understand that the duty does not bind him and he is an individual capable of going his own way. This will trigger a chaotic outburst of happiness and uncontrolled feeling (Si+) and the ESTj has for the moment become an ESFj. At that point the feeling of being perfect has become concrete and the ESFj might attempt to do pretty much anything as a form of celebration, uppity little bastards, aren't they?

    Thus, while motivated by the environment and the benefit of the whole of society the ESTj would prefer to be left alone. He's not interested in the opinions of others because those opinions don't reach the level of perfection the ESTj has and are generally irrelevant to what he's doing.

    EDIT: While the ESTj can be propelled to introspection by failure he can also end up in the same place through success. When the duty is done or can not be continued, the ESTj feels he's in trouble.


    The denominations ABSTRACT and CONCRETE bug me. They basically describe whether a quality is ascending or descending. Ascending feels abstract because it's seeking for a new high within the realm of the quality, it doesn't know what it's target will look like but feels it'll know it when it sees it. Descending feels concrete because it feels it's already seen the highest the quality has to offer, it can go no further, truth has been found, it knows this because it personally experienced it.

    The problem arises when you look at an ST type that's practising making woodcuts or cooking. That's supposed to be 'abstract' whereas an NF who proudly and confidently proclaims his visions of love and peace through submitting to the UFOs would be called 'concrete'. Having said that any name is by definition correct, these still feel like they could be improved upon.

    I'll try to start using
    DESCENDING or EXPENDING instead of CONCRETE. {And I utterly failed in this attempt and have still been using abstract and concrete *sigh*}

    Ironically the (-) and (+) way of describing qualities is the opposite of what is actually happening in the psyche of the person. The growing function is called (-). This would probably be due to the fumbling, sometimes even desperate nature that the (-) type seems to have to the outside, even in situations in which he shows skill that's significantly greater than someone with (+) quality. Whereas (+) people seem confident, powerful and skillful even in situations in which they have no idea about what they're doing.

    I'm not going to try to force a change in the use of (+) and (-) even in my personal notes. Confusion would be unavoidable. I'll simply try to avoid those denominations in the future.

    This brings to mind that certain types have been described as testing things, especially people around them. As testing is a process of seeking information it seems natural that all the standard 16 types have this SEARCHING property. They just exhibit it in different ways, some certainly more intrusive than others.

    About the connection and or lack thereof between Model A and Reinin dichotomies.

    From the point of view of the dichotomies, there should be a free flow of type traits according to the environmental situation. There is no basis for preference of thinking one way to thinking in another way except whether it's beneficial in the current situation.

    Yet the parameters of the current situation are not always clear. It is sometimes impossible to make an accurate guess of which functions one shoud use in a given situation.

    This is where personal preference comes to play. This is where model A comes to play. Model A puts on another, more superficial layer over the basic qualities. It allows one to choose a certain environmental state as the one preferred and describes it's relations to the other states. Accordingly the descriptions connected to the model A are more free-form, more sketchy. The model A allows momentary changes of behaviour but regards it as irrelevant. It's basically a type-watching tool, very closely related to enneagrams and such. You create a self-image and then try to uphold it.

    Is Model A true? The question is nonsensical. The Model A is a way of life. It's true if you choose it to be true. It's true if you decide that a certain part of you is the true you and the other parts of you are a lie.

    At the same time the Model A is a technique. It allows you to perceive and understand the reasons for what kind of skills you have and in what kind of situations the skills you've already developed would let you thrive in. It will help you if you want to become an expert in a single field, if you want to make yourself believe that you have a destiny of sorts. It will give you self-confidence and help you perceive and defend your interests aggressively.

    On the other hand it will lead you to conflict with people around you, it will decrease your ability to adapt to the environment, it increases the risk of dissociating from reality.

    Understanding the Model A can be very useful in learning to handle environmental stress instead of immediately succumbing to it, desperately seeking for environmental clues.

    Is the Model A scientific? Well, no, it's not based on observable evidence, so ... no. It actually contradicts a number of observable things. But is it a proven technique? Is it useful in its own context? That would be a yes to both questions.

    What's the connection to social relations?

    Each environmental state, each quadra, has a code of conduct, an etiquette and a belief system that supports useful action within that state. These are not psychological things, they are habits, language, tools. Yet they can be very important in looking for people with shared interests. These superficial patterns, symbols and tools are not the functions, they are not biological. They fail often. It's possible to see eg. alpha activity that nominally supports gamma values.

    When a certain style of language and certain symbols become dominant within a group some participants actually start to believe in those symbols and change their actions accordingly. Others take up the symbols while continuing to break their spirit by acting actually within a different motivational state. Yet others will oppose completely.

    Sometimes it's humorous. The hypocrisy is often blatantly clear. Other times less so.

    EDIT for clarity: Since there's no actual basis for reasonable individual choice of quadras in situations of unclarity, there's a massive NEED for one. If Model A didn't exist, it would have to be IMMEDIATELY invented. As such models go, it's a pretty good one.


    Accepting Introverted Intution is tactical and calculating.
    Creative Introverted Intution is strategic and carefree.

    Accepting Introverted Sensing is tactical and calculating.
    Creative Introverted Sensing is strategic and carefree.

    Accepting Extraverted Sensing is strategic and calculating.
    Cretive Extraverted Sensing is tactical and carefree.

    Accepting Extraverted Intution is tactical and carefree.
    Creative Extraverted Sensing is strategic and calculating.

    Accepting Extraverted Feeling is obstinate and construct-creating.
    Creative Extraverted Feeling is compliant and emotion-creating.

    Accepting Extraverted Thinking is compliant and emotion-creating.
    Creative Extraverted Thinking is obstinate and construct-creating.

    Accepting Introverted Feeling is compliant and construct-creating.
    Creative Introverted Feeling is obstinate and emotion-creating.

    Accepting Introverted Thinking is obstinate and emotion-creating.
    Creative Introverted Thinking is compliant and construct-creating.


    The above is quite important when trying to figure out what a function is. Because accepting and creative versions of a function are drastically different in all cases one should not make a function description that is only true for one version of the function.

    It's fairly obvious that since there is no one single version of a function
    1. the brain process, motivation and meaning of the accepting and creative function are not the same.
    2. It's pretty stupid and non-sensical to create an inter-personal model based on functions that doesn't differentiate between accepting and creative version of function. (Yes, this is another reason why Model A is fundamentally baseless even while it remains a cute tool.)


    Some modelling on the above...

    Statics are strategic when calculating. They create meaningful, interesting and useful long-term theories.

    Statics are tactical when carefree. They then proceed to break those personal rules without care for long-term consequences for short-term profit.


    Dynamics are strategic when carefree. They can accept any rules, long-term alliances and theories without a blink.

    Dynamics are tactical when calculating. The dynamics then proceed to strictly use and abuse those same rules to the maximum, making strict and accurate predictions about the end-result of those rules.


    Dynamics are obstinate when construct-creating. When dynamics choose a side, a story they fanatically stick to it, even when it's obvious they're in the wrong and are substantially hurt by it.

    Dynamics are compliant when emotion-creating. Dynamics can join in on any side of any argument and feel welcome. They create space for others and make distant friends easily.


    Statics are obstinate when emotion-creating. The statics are a side of their own, they fanatically take care of what they perceive to be their own interest.

    Statics are compliant when construct-creating. Statics are conservative regarding perceived truth. They try not to test the obvious, to accept what's commonly perceived to be true, accept the environmental limits.

    More about the functions.

    Introverted Thinking is stimulated by simple, powerful messages. It bridges the gap between complexity and simplicity, creating complex derivatives, systems, plans from the base of power. Motivated by personal control.

    Introverted Feeling is stimulated by continuous confusement. It too bridges the gap between complexity and simplicity, creating contentment, seeing one's own limits. Motivated by loss of control.


    Introverted Intution tests out systems in a situation of complexity, it thoroughly evaluates power of systems, making gross estimates, continuously seeking optimal answers, not accepting failure. Motivated by uncertainty, danger, it seeks to find the correct solution to chosen questions. (As opposed to an end-all be all explanation of everything.)

    Introverted Sensing tests out simple systems, it thoroughly evaluates personal freedom of choice within a system, charts options, maximizes personal space, a comfort zone. Making things easy and powerful. Motivated by safety and boredom.


    Extraverted Intution is activity that is perceived as unimportant, simple, trivial, deserving of embellishment, excitement, art. It's doing simple things with flair, making things better, trying new ways. Motivated by safety and boredom.

    Extraverted Sensing is activity that is perceived as important, complex, decisive, forced. It's trying to solve a situation to satisfaction with maximal efficiency and minimal tarrying or flair. Motivated by danger.

    Extraverted Feeling is activity that is simple, yet has many possible purposes. It's doing what you know best and seeing great results by using skills to maximum effect. Doing risky things with great confidence. Motivated by personal control.

    Extraverted Thinking is activity that has a complex base and reasoning but seems like the optimal answer to a difficult situation. It's efficient but situational. It's taking maximum profit from environmental opportunities. It's taking complex choices and turning it into simple actions. Motivated by loss of control..

    A thing that rose up...

    It is not important in what single cathegory an individual belongs to in the reinin dichotomies. Everyone can be 'cheerful' or 'grave', 'obstinate' or 'compliant', 'resolute' or 'judicious' etc. What's important is the combinations of dichotomies. What's important is that recognising someone as 'obstinate', 'construct-creating' and 'grave' is as telling as recognising someone as
    'Thinking', 'extrovert' and 'creating'. This person can be obstinate or not obstinate but when he is obstinate, he is always also grave and construct-creating.

    This thread is getting to be finished. I'm finding hard to find further material to comment on. Modelling sets of dichotomies and their meaning could of course continue for a long long time, but with the examples here the task is getting trivial and thus serves no longer purpose.

    I'll continue at some point by turning this stuff into practical use, amazing people with my super 1337 socionics skillz and collecting money off self-help books. But that would mean I turned alpha. Feel free to kill me when that happens.
    Over and out. Smile!

    Expat said:

    Reply with quote Smilingeyes wrote:
    Edit 2: If anyone proficient in historical typing (*cough* *cough* Expat *cough*) is interested in suggesting a type for some of the great power gamer politicians (the Iron Chancellor, the Great Cardinal and others) I'd be very interested.

    - Bismarck: after giving it some thought I'd say he was almost certainly ESTp logical subtype.

    - Richelieu: my general impression is of ESTj, but I haven't seen as much evidence.


    Adding some clarity and terminology.

    Reinin criteria are behaviouristic. They are what create the social interaction and therefore the true thing behind socionics. They describe what actually happens and for what reasons. They are momentary and thus they reveal little about the personality or person involved yet they are immediately observable and thus give the most direct information, something that can be immediately used. Only matters that are directly related to the risk-benefit analysis in a given situation can be considered as an important part of the Reinin model.


    When a socionist considers a person's personality, he checks if a person consistently acts according to a certain social strategy. If a person does so consistently, it can be called his personal social strategy or "personality type". The characteristics that define this type can be called PRIMARY PERSONALITY TRAITS. They are essentially the Reinin criteria that that person prefers over others. One can consider this as forming an integral over time of a person's behaviour.


    Consistently acting according to a certain strategy creates a constant need for certain kinds of actions on the part of the person. To be able to accomplish these actions a person needs tools. The tools that one collects to help his primary personal strategy can be called SECONDARY PERSONALITY TRAITS. They can be social (friends, allies, family), material (tools, pets, money), aptitudial (mental skills, physical skills, knowledges), vocational (job, status, reputation), physical (weight, muscle-condition, body-modifications) or any other tools that a person feels are directly required for him to be functional. These tools are indicative but DO NOT define a person's personality. The more a person needs to use consistent effort to gain a certain tool the more indicative this tool is of his type.

    Consistent use of a certain strategy and set of tools is automatically accompanied by giving less importance to other areas of life. Over time this will result in the accumulation of generally negative traits in other areas of life that the person sees as peripheral to his interests. These negative traits can be called TERTIARY PERSONAL TRAITS as they are caused by the pursuit of the SECONDARY TRAITS. The clear existence of a TERTIARY TRAIT can be very indicative of a consistent personality type but they can also be difficult to perceive or understand correctly as generally some attempts are made to hide them. Examples of possible tertiary traits: poverty, obesity, unpopularity, work-stress etc.

    Other consistent personality traits must be considered OBFUSCATING PERSONALITY TRAITS. They are not directly related to a persons' social or strategical role. They serve purpose to OBFUSCATE the TERTIARY TRAITS. They're also useful as a way to try out new skills etc. but what is important is that a person will only rarely sacrifice his SECONDARY TRAITS for an OBFUSCATING TRAIT. If there's conflict, the important tool wins over the trivial curiosity.

    A dominant strategy often exists in a given field of activity. This strategy is strongly associated with particular tools that exist as secondary traits for the given social territory.

    Singular secondary personality traits are not exclusive to a single type. Also, what is an important tool to one person can still be a hobby, an obfuscatin trait to another.

    It is possible to achieve great success on a field of activity that generally uses tools that are not your secondary personality traits.
    EDIT: This is because every strategy has weaknesses and ignores certain resources. Another strategy that concentrates totally on using these weaknesses of the dominant activity and uses resources that are abundant because they are ignored by most can gain great success over the dominant strategy.
    EDIT 2: Can also occur due to simply extraordinary circumstances and luck.


    Person 1.

    Reinin criteria: Te, compliant, grave.
    Primary personality traits: Thinking style ESTj, a person who performs a duty as best as she can.
    Secondary personality traits: Ability to argue efficiently, a well-paying job, clothes of quality.
    Tertiary personality traits: Abrasive personal contact, ignorance of emerging trends.
    Obfuscating traits: Listens to Celine Dion, dyes her hair white, is the goalie of a football team.

    Person 2.

    Reinin criteria: emotion-creating, introvert, judicious, process-oriented.
    Primary personality traits: ISFp, a person who feels the need to perform to others for social support.
    Secondary personality traits: Good language skills, ability to perform stage magic, big muscles, self-control.
    Tertiary personality traits: Dependency on others' opinions, lack of education.
    Obfuscating traits: Adores western movies, bets on horses, is jewish.

    Compare to

    Person 3.

    Reinin criteria: emotion-creating, introvert, judicious, process-oriented.
    Primary personality traits: ISFp, a person who feels the need to perform to others for social support.
    Secondary personality traits: Cooking skills, sexual prowess, self-control, clothes of quality.
    Tertiary personality traits: Ignorance of emerging trends, dependency on others' opinions.
    Obfuscating traits: Listens to Celine Dion, dyes her hair white, is jewish.

    The first of these persons could be a computer engineer with a desire for quality in all areas of life and a mother who always sends her Celine Dion cds.

    The second could be a performance artist trying to make it in Las Vegas.

    The third could be a house-wife to some great opera singer, who doesn't really understand the singing but understands the big pay-checks.


    Expat said:

    You have said the type "changes", even if only within EJ, EP, IJ, IP. But even that is not inconsistent with "traditional" socionics as in Model-A.

    For instance, even if I can also have my ESFj "moments", as long as my most comfortable and preferred mode is ENTj, all things being equal, it would still be valid to say that my type is ENTj rather than ESFj.

    Smilingeyes replies:
    Yes, quite so.


    Expat said:

    PostPosted: Wed May 24, 2006 8:14 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
    Just giving a more accurate comment to these concepts and how they relate with real examples --

    Based on "conventional" socionics, I have typed some historical/public figures, and now I'd like to check how they match their modes of behaviour according to dichotomies - -

    Smilingeyes wrote:
    ways of doing politics.

    the large-scale planners (strategic) who want to really change things:
    Calculating, careful reformer:
    Mode 1 (obstinate taciturn): Obsessed about doing what people want and achieving the most popular result.
    Mode 2 (compliant narrator): Tell people whatever seems to work to maintain power. Construct a calculated lie.

    Otto von Bismarck would clearly be in mode 2. I have typed him as ESTp logical subtype. Mode 2 would fit in a maximum of resolute, narrator in compliant around ESTp split. Match: good.

    Napoleon would also fit mode 2. Same point. However, Rocky made a good case for him as ISTp. Match: requires further reflection

    Helmut Kohl would fit mode 2 in the phase leading up to, and just after, German reunification. ESTp split. Good match

    Smilingeyes wrote:

    Carefree, true believer in his political agenda, major poorly designed changes:
    Mode 1(compliant narrator): Try out large-scale suggestions until something seems popular. Usually tested with the cabinet until a suitable one is found for public presentation.
    Mode 2(obstinate taciturn): Tester of public opinion. Is everyone really along in the boat? Needs demonstrations of public faith to maintain image of power. Uses public opinion to bash opposition to silence.

    Gaius Octavius aka Caesar Augustus would actually fit both modes according to the precise point in his career. I have typed him as ENTj intuitive subtype. That would put him in the perfect position to shift from compliant narrator to obstinate taciturn while maintaining a peak of carefree resolute. Match: Perfect

    Julius Caesar the Dictator would fit mainly mode 2, with only some forays into mode 1. Type: ENTj split or logical subtype. Peak of emotion-creating, obstinate at a minimum. Match: would need re-typing as ENTj intuitive

    Margareth Thatcher would fit mainly mode 2, also due to political restraints in a democracy. ENTj intuitive; I had typed her as ENTj logical Match: good

    Cardinal Richelieu: I could see him as ESTj, which if he would still be called "resolute and carefree" only as logical subtype. That would put him at a peak of compliant, so only mode 1. Match: good

    Smilingeyes wrote:

    the political operators who are just seeking their fortune in politics (tactical):
    Carefree power-tripping politics:
    Mode 1(obstinate narrator): The politician uses an iron fist to crush opposition. Victory is about being the only one still functioning on the field.
    Mode 2(compliant taciturn): Flailing around, trying to do things one hopes the public would like, trying to milk gratefulness from the public and other politicians.

    Robespierre would fit only mode 1, which would make him an ISTj split at the maximum combination of narrator, obstinate and resolute. Match: perfect

    Romano Prodi could only fit mode 2. That would put him at the extreme of compliant but still reasonably taciturn and resolute. INFj ethical subtype. I had typed him (with FDG's help) as INFj. Match: very good

    Francois Mitterrand would fit both modes. Yet I had typed him as INTj. As INTj logical subtype he would be at the point of maximum obstinacy but not so taciturn and resolute. Match: could be better

    Angela Merkel would be at the same point as Mitterrand, as INTj logical subtype, and she could indeed fit only mode 2. Match: good

    Smilingeyes wrote:

    Calculating careful manipulator of personal interest.
    Mode 1(obstinate narrator): The politician is intent on arguing opposition to submission. A passionate orator who will not act himself if there is any opposition. A leader of reason and sensible causes.
    Mode 2(compliant taciturn): Ready to join any power block that gives suitable compensation. A political hang-around and a compromise candidate for opposing parties.

    Marcus Tullius Cicero would actually fit both modes perfectly. That would put him at the peak of resolute, as INTp or INFp intuitive subtype. I had typed him as INTp. Match: perfect

    Oskar Lafontaine would only fit mode 2. That puts him at the peak of compliant, or ISFp/INFp ethical subtype. I had typed him as ISFp. Match: perfect

    I did this as an exercise; I am aware that very precise analyses of the people involved would have to be done, and that the matches are very flexible to say the least. Yet it does make sense.

    That's some good stuff, Expat.

    It seems that where there are disagreements, it's a case of a person being a judicious type. This is quite reasonable as I only wrote about judicious type political behaviour. My original selection of judicious types was based on the personal opinion that politics is about the skills of compromise and working through complexity. Naturally there are people who are politicians in the traditional sense as in working in a political party who are judicious.

    Judicious people even have certain aptitudes that make them sometimes appealing to the public as political personae.

    First is that they seem more genuine and truthful, because they don't make the political compromises and basically only work with projects that they themselves are interested and invested in. They are also generally more colourful and can easily get the public spotlight. This property is magnified by the smaller amount of competition by people with similar skills. It's easier to make a distinction to the normal politicians and gain the protest votes by this method. Yet judicious behaviour can not supplant resolute behaviour in the field of politics as the dominant behaviour for a long term without the system becoming a recognized, valid, long-term absolute monarchy, a system in which the primary reason of the whole body politic is to serve the whims of an individual.

    Also a person with judicious behaviour is capable of expressing marginal or contrary opinions that are nevertheless good for the society. This makes them often look like individuals with exceptional capability and intelligence (or complete dolts and lunatics if they happen to be wrong).

    Nevertheless there are also political positions in which judicious behaviour is required. Some cabinet posts are such. When the role of the head of state is to be a pr-person judicious behaviour is required. A judicious voice is beneficial in the judicial branch of the state. Also the field of diplomacy benefits from a judicious take on things. The opposite of judicious activity being activity that's required to gain popularity in a political party, in the parliament and with the part of the populace that is most interested in politics. Thus again returning to the fact that most things in politics remain a matter of resolute behaviour.

    What should be noted is that when we consider not an individual but a party, an alliance, or similar structure that is not supposed to benefit only an individual or OTOH everyone, both judicious and resolute behaviour are required.

    Also... the previous is not meant to supplant the 'aristocratic' / 'democratic' dichotomy which seems to have more to do with the distribution of rights and duties rather than complexity of decision making.

    And now finally to add more material...

    "Power-gaming" ie. how to drive your personal interests or prove that you're correct while everyone else is an idiot while still seemingly (and quite possibly due to circumstances also factually) working for the good of the body politic.


    calculating, strategy, obstinacy and narrator and their opposites.

    The strong personae (strategic) who have a powerful sense of identity, a set of long-term ideas and skills they are comfortable with.

    Mode 1 (compliant narrator): Hang around with and take care of your proven personal friends. Turn their faults into positives and protect them from slander. Loyalty to a functioning system.

    The difference with INFp "political" behaviour is that the INFp rides the circumstances, picks and discards friends at will, the INFj sticks to a certain cabal, makes a personal statement and acts actually, not just nominally subservient to the group, thus being able to maintain alliances that would otherwise fall apart, not by cunning but by personal force and magnetism.

    pr-persona: A martyr, a thoroughly good person, the peak of goodwill, sometimes duped by evil people.

    Optimal political position: Absolute monarch.

    Mode 2 (obstinate taciturn): Stick to a few powerful principles, strive to be the personal perfection of morality and correct behaviour, an icon of public virtue. Is a constant advocate of a particular principle while maintaining adaptability in the field of possible actions.

    The difference with INTp "political" behaviour is that the INTp pushes the story of his personal virtue, persecution and superior understanding to succeed in certain goals. The INTj on the other hand is just overwhelmed by the power of truth he perceives in some single or set of few ideas. While the INTp is "proud" of his misery and strictness and uses it as a tool to push and punish others, the INTj is often embarrassed by his lack of power over the circumstances. This can make him an enigmatic, distant public figure that is associated with being above day to day worries and possessing a great sense of justice.

    pr-persona: The pious and humble judge.

    Optimal political position: Member of supreme court.

    Mode 1 (obstinate taciturn): Constant testing of personal ability and power. Obsessive micro-management (some of this behaviour is on this forum often misattributed to the ESTj). Pursuing skills that are superior to those of others for personal power. Randomly showing off and pushing people around.

    The difference with the ISTj and the ESTp is the difference with the bark and the bite. The ISTj and ESTp are only interested in being able to beat things that are expected to become an obstacle to them. To the ISTp this skill and power is a trophy, a personal statement, something that defines him on a very personal level. He is less likely to actually use his power. Thus in relation to the ISTj and ESTp the ISTp finds himself often superior in his ability and strength but inferior in his effectiveness.

    pr-persona: The man who can do anything and knows everything.

    Optimal political position: Party whip.

    Mode 2 (compliant narrator): Perfect social conduct. Performing a role. Being above and beyond everyone else. Mentally distancing oneself from the environment so as to be able to perform optimally according to his personal interests.

    The difference with the ISFj "political" behaviour is that the ISFj feels overwhelmed and bound by his feeling of mediocrity and thus strives to do more and more, the ISFp on the other hand gives only what is required and the minimum of what seems to be appropriate. Thus the ISFp has the ability to constantly surprise people with his resourcefulness, yet his habit of not using his resources makes it difficult for him to have a constant important political role.

    pr-persona: An objective, detached, benevolent, clear-minded party.

    Optimal political position: Ambassador.

    The artificial personae (tactical) who craft their personae for specific tasks discarding the sense of the whole.

    Mode 1 (compliant taciturn): Performing the most important service possible. Taking charge while being unable to lead. Rather than take a social role in a group he would like to perform the duties of everyone in the group. Any task in which he is involved is his personal task and must be accomplished to the peak of his ability.

    The difference with ESTj and ISTp micromanaging is most easily apparent from the difference in positivism and obstinacy -cathegories. ISTp: "There is only one correct way to do this and you must do it so even if you say it's impossible." ESTj: "No, no, no, that's bullshit and completely fucked up! You really can't do any better than that? You sure? Well, fuck, we have to make-do then, I'll find some way to fix this shit. Why does it always have to be me?" The difference with ESTp is that the self-expectations of the ESTp tend to be more realistic and he is socially abrasive as a method of using power, thus being more able to control the level of his abrasiveness. The ESTj on the other hand is completely objective driven and his abrasiveness is a sign of his dedication and sacrifice of what he perceives to be superficial to the task. While the ESTj can accomplish major political tasks he will often find himself without friends due to his selected methods.

    pr-persona: Frighteningly efficient administrator.

    Optimal political position: Minister of treasury.

    Mode 2 (obstinate narrator): He will appear in the middle of things and act as if he was the centerpiece. Everything is about him and his charisma. Plenty of fluff, little substance.

    The difference with the ESFp is that the ESFp tries to do something concrete to gain massive popularity, the ESFj only cares about the popularity itself.

    pr-persona: The ultimate nice guy.

    Optimal political position: Nominal head-of-state without power.

    Mode 1 (obstinate narrator): Willingness to conceal and confuse to gain popularity and freedom. Willingness to bend over backwards and try strange and innovative ways to achieve his purposes. Doesn't really listen but tries to give the image that he does.

    The difference with the "political" activity of the ENFj is that while they both feel that they are subjugated by the environment the ENFj feels he must do what is expected of him whereas the ENFp feels that he must give the bare minimum appearance of doing what's expected of him. To the ENFp everything is already so buggered up as it's likely to be so he's basically free to do anything it occurs to him to do, at least if he can get away with it.

    pr-persona: The free spirit, a curious but beautiful, undefinable person.

    Optimal political position: Lobbyist.

    Mode 2 (compliant taciturn):
    Witty, quick, genius. His is the quickest word any side of rio grande.

    The difference with the "political" activity of the ENTj is that the ENTj tries to say smart things for the benefit of others, the ENTp tries to say witty things for the benefit of himself. The ENTp often talks himself into a dead-end and ends up contradicting himself. Depends heavily on being somewhere far away when others finally find out about his mistakes.

    pr-persona: Sooooooo smart, soooooo interesting, soooo funny, soooo much better than everyone else.

    Optimal political position: Manager of a think-tank.
    First eliminate every possible source of error. Thence success is inevitable.

  2. #2
    thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    24 Post(s)
    0 Thread(s)


    Quote Originally Posted by Smilingeyes
    EJ: "What am I doing wrong?" or "You're great and I bet you could be even better!"
    IJ: "Why do I suck so much?" or "I need to show you how it's done!"

    Note the glories of dualism on that one!
    QFT. Brilliant observation.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts