Reinin's Book

[stevENTj]

Cool. Will download this onto my iPad.

[FDG]

I can only voice for myself, but that's (I mean - the one in this book) definitely the best ENTj description I've read. Captures many essential aspects which aren't usually explained by, say, socionics.org descriptions.

[717495]

I'm sorry to say the EII description is not as "full" as many of the others, but the ILE description was honestly the best I've read. Every detail about it fits me to a T, which is never the case in other type descriptions I read, and not the case in any other of these descriptions from the book. I always score ILE in Reinin dichotomies.

To anyone in the know:

Does Reinin's functional model (1st/2nd/3rd/4th, Plus/Minus) sync up pretty well with Model A, or is it better to interpret this stuff with a completely blank slate?

I pulled an all-nighter to (more or less) finish the thing; and, surprisingly, really, really liked it, as he described and defined types/functions/relations in ways I've never really seen or heard before. Hence, the question: Is that because he's looking at things from a very different angle, or is he just kinda flat-out wrong?

I would guess yes it does compute, though it has its different focuses and interpretations (and description-wise I would conclude it accurate) but he basically collaborated with Aushra about the theory, to where Reinin dichotomies were considered Classical Socionics, and she approved of much of his research. An angle such as Fe dominants constantly involving and adapting themselves in the relationship aspect, so they can better "act" accordingly, versus Fi dominants staying true to their personal attitudes toward people (with possibly some deeper explanation of Fi), which essentially stems a different definition of the word "relationship" if I'm not mistaken, and let's think about static and dynamic, seems quite reasonable and valid to me.