Reinin dichotomies, why does it even exist

[Inguz]

Is there any purpose to these dichotomies? ESI gets thrown in to result instead of process, IEI is farsighted along with LSE and the list goes on. Why are they even allowed to roam the earth freely?

[mu4]

Reinin Dichotomies are harder to understand, and not well described, but I've found many uses for Reinin especially dichotomies like Aristocratic/democratic, Static/Dynamic. Process/Result is a very useful Reinin, but it's not authoritatively described.

I think one has to have a great deal of experience with people and understand psychology/philosophy/etc in general before one tries to tackle Reinin from a exploratory standpoint.

[Inguz]

Static/Dynamic is solid, and the idea of Process/Result is too, but looking at my ESI mother I can most assuredly say that she does not fit result. Or carefree. But after that it seems to be mostly guesswork at best. Like the NF club is the club that can twist the perspective of a person in a way that reveals positive sides of people, yet this club is exclusively aristocratic. The poor definitions (on some) doesn't help either.

[mu4]

Static/Dynamic is solid, and the idea of Process/Result is too, but looking at my ESI mother I can most assuredly say that she does not fit result. Or carefree. But after that it seems to be mostly guesswork at best. Like the NF club is the club that can twist the perspective of a person in a way that reveals positive sides of people, yet this club is exclusively aristocratic. The poor definitions (on some) doesn't help either.

From the way carefree is described, ESI's would be carefree. Also ESI are most definitely a result type imo. Maybe your mom isn't ESI?

NF's seek a sort of moral and spiritual purity and that is what makes them aristocratic, they might twist the perspective of a person in a positive manner(whatever this means), but they will also often have strict views on moral/spiritual purity which leads to a kind of elitism or separation of themselves. Ghandi is a good example of this along with many others, living a life of asceticism and/or engaging in many cleansing acts and practices.

[Inguz]

From the way carefree is described, ESI's would be carefree. Also ESI are most definitely a result type imo. Maybe your mom isn't ESI?

NF's seek a sort of moral and spiritual purity and that is what makes them aristocratic, they might twist the perspective of a person in a positive manner(whatever this means), but they will also often have strict views on moral/spiritual purity which leads to a kind of elitism or separation of themselves. Ghandi is a good example of this along with many others, living a life of asceticism and/or engaging in many cleansing acts and practices.

I am sure that she is. She is like an ESI of the Fi subtype caricature.

But at the same time, Gandhi fought for equality and started by protesting against the apartheid in South Africa. So without twisting this discussion for an infinity, he did start his activism career by protesting against the "aristocracy" in South Africa where he considered it to be wrong that a person could be judged based on their ethnicity.

[Saberstorm]

Reinin's stuff is not for a beginner, not at all. It enhances understanding, but can also produce a lot of confusion. There are no good introductions to it, even from Reinin himself. I love Reinin, but I cannot recommend him. He is frustrating.

[xerx]

Is there any purpose to these dichotomies? ESI gets thrown in to result instead of process, IEI is farsighted along with LSE and the list goes on. Why are they even allowed to roam the earth freely?

They're derived mathematically from mixing the four dichotomies. What they actually mean is the meat of the problem. You'd be well-advised to take any one dichotomy's name vis a vis the dichotomy's meaning (e.g. process, aristocratic) with a pinch of salt when making your fomulations.

[mu4]

I am sure that she is. She is like an ESI of the Fi subtype caricature.

But at the same time, Gandhi fought for equality and started by protesting against the apartheid in South Africa. So without twisting this discussion for an infinity, he did start his activism career by protesting against the "aristocracy" in South Africa where he considered it to be wrong that a person could be judged based on their ethnicity.

Yet he also created a situation where he made himself and his family set apart from the average person. His family today is the aristocracy in India and as corrupt as any old aristocratic family.

Just because someone fights against the old aristocracy doesn't mean they don't engage in the same practices.

[DaftPunk]

I am sure that she is. She is like an ESI of the Fi subtype caricature.

But at the same time, Gandhi fought for equality and started by protesting against the apartheid in South Africa. So without twisting this discussion for an infinity, he did start his activism career by protesting against the "aristocracy" in South Africa where he considered it to be wrong that a person could be judged based on their ethnicity.

What do you want to say with that? That he can't be aristocrat?

The ESI I know fits result and carefree. What is the Fi-ESI? Whats your mesure? Is it based on descriptions your imagination a sythesis of the two?

[xerx]

afaik, aristocracy is commonly intended to identify types that view social interactions in terms of clearly defined ingroup and outgroup preferences, but doesn't cast the type of group in stone. it could be race, street gang, or something more abstract like ideological orientation. look into any east coast / west coast rivalry for a primer on aristocracy in a competitive but reasonably friendly context.

much speculation has been laid about the seeming irreconcilability between delta values and the decisiveness of aristocratic social classifications. gulenko has argued that negativism rather than aristocracy accounts for promoting ingroup integrity against outgroup intrusion. I'll leave you to wade through that mess.

[Inguz]

Yet he also created a situation where he made himself and his family set apart from the average person. His family today is the aristocracy in India and as corrupt as any old aristocratic family.

Just because someone fights against the old aristocracy doesn't mean they don't engage in the same practices.

Think of a successful Gamma. Did this person not set him/herself apart in the same fashion? If no, what is the difference?

[13iokenesis]

much speculation has been laid about the seeming irreconcilability between delta values and the decisiveness of aristocratic social classifications. gulenko has argued that negativism rather than aristocracy accounts for promoting ingroup integrity against outgroup intrusion. I'll leave you to wade through that mess.

I would like to read that article. Link it please.

[Saberstorm]

I would like to read that article. Link it please.

Sometimes very important ideas are mentioned in an article about another subject, and often in only one sentence. I would bet that Gulenko simply dropped a statement in a larger article. I could be wrong, but that is the way that Socionics rolls...

[Inguz]

Sometimes very important ideas are mentioned in an article about another subject, and often in only one sentence. I would bet that Gulenko simply dropped a statement in a larger article. I could be wrong, but that is the way that Socionics rolls...

You are right. Now the question that remains is, which one?

[bolong]

Yet he also created a situation where he made himself and his family set apart from the average person. His family today is the aristocracy in India and as corrupt as any old aristocratic family.

Just because someone fights against the old aristocracy doesn't mean they don't engage in the same practices.

No, those are not the same Gandhis, lol.

[mu4]

No, those are not the same Gandhis, lol.

You're right, I'm wrong. But still he created a standard which is not replicated for the average person, which is what aristocracy often does. Ideals about purity is more or less a aristocratic sort of concept. Purity of race, purity of virtue, sharia law, are all founded on the same ideals yet can often be quite despotic.

[xerx]

I would like to read that article. Link it please.

Here you go. I translated it a few years back.

[Saberstorm]

Here you go. I translated it a few years back.

Ah ha I was right! This is an article that only addresses this issue as a tangent, and I bet it is only in one sentence! I deserve a prize.

[xerx]

Ah ha I was right! This is an article that only addresses this issue as a tangent, and I bet it is only in one sentence! I deserve a prize.

that's because it doesn't deserve its own article. no trait, reinin or otherwise, should get more than a passing mention vs the whole dichotomy itself.

[mu4]

afaik, aristocracy is commonly intended to identify types that view social interactions in terms of clearly defined ingroup and outgroup preferences, but doesn't cast the type of group in stone. it could be race, street gang, or something more abstract like ideological orientation. look into any east coast / west coast rivalry for a primer on aristocracy in a competitive but reasonably friendly context.

much speculation has been laid about the seeming irreconcilability between delta values and the decisiveness of aristocratic social classifications. gulenko has argued that negativism rather than aristocracy accounts for promoting ingroup integrity against outgroup intrusion. I'll leave you to wade through that mess.

I think it can be both. However the influence of Negativism is a bit inconsistent. Types like LII and ILI can seem aristocratic/pedantic/stuffy while types like IEI can be more open and accommodating.

Also types like EIE can be extremely aristocratic and excluding.

There is likely a mix of traits that influence what can be viewed as aristocratic behavior/democratic behavior, but what is important imo is that democratic and aristocratic quadras share clubs and mutual activities. This overlap creates a reason to gather AND a reason to engage conflict, as they have different viewpoints on the shared domain.

Also, Delta "aristocracy" isn't the same as beta "aristocracy", it is a more decentralized aristocracy with a council of elders vs hierarchy of merit/superiority/strength.

However these forms of organization would be quite different than "democratic" organizations.

[Inguz]

However these forms of organization would be quite different than "democratic" organizations.

How are they different?

[mu4]

How are they different?

Democracy in socionics is within the realm of NT's(researchers) and SF's(socials), this is quite a bit different than pragmatists and humanitarians.

Pragmatists isn't even a good term for it imo, it's more Pragmatists tends towards a sort of consequentialism or utilitarianism which leaves very little room for creativity or experimentation while humanitarians strive for a purity which also leaves very little room for moral ambiguity and experimentation in that area of life.

Democratic organizations are often based on systems of checks and balances as well as social considerations which make assessment of ideals such as "merit" or "virtue" harder to determine, however it doesn't entirely divorce itself from these concepts either.

Because clubs form activity from the same strong functions, they all share a lot of similarities and characteristics, and clubs in socionics is the main division of shared activities and concerns.

It's very hard to go into specifics about this because concepts of Aristocracy and Democracy evolve and change, while imo the club differences are something of a driving force in the evolution.

[Inguz]

Democracy in socionics is within the realm of NT's(researchers) and SF's(socials), this is quite a bit different than pragmatists and humanitarians.

Pragmatists isn't even a good term for it imo, it's more Pragmatists tends towards a sort of consequentialism or utilitarianism which leaves very little room for creativity or experimentation while humanitarians strive for a purity which also leaves very little room for moral ambiguity and experimentation in that area of life.

Democratic organizations are often based on systems of checks and balances as well as social considerations which make assessment of ideals such as "merit" or "virtue" harder to determine, however it doesn't entirely divorce itself from these concepts either.

Because clubs form activity from the same strong functions, they all share a lot of similarities and characteristics, and clubs in socionics is the main division of shared activities and concerns.

It's very hard to go into specifics about this because concepts of Aristocracy and Democracy evolve and change, while imo the club differences are something of a driving force in the evolution.

This seems like quite an idealized view of the clubs. Also from this answer I am not quite sure which parts of this it is that you have found in literature and what is your personal view of it. If you did more elaborate distinctions in what it is that differ aristocratic from democratic then that would be helpful.

Btw, what's your type?

[DaftPunk]

According to the aristocrat/democrat dichotomy Reinin makes sense IMO

The Democrats – the aristocrats. The attribute manifests itself as a universal characteristic of fellowship. The democrats find it easy to establish horizontal relationships, get on friendly terms, become friends and partners. The aristocrats are more aware of the hierarchies; they keep people at a distance, more prone to establishing vertical relationships.
There are two democratic quadras: the alpha-quadra and the gamma-quadra. There are two aristocratic quadras – the beta-quadra and the delta-quadra. The difference between the two democratic quadras may be summed up as follows: alpha-quadra is characterized by democracy in relationships. These people are obviously inclined to democratic style of speech, clothes. "I hate wearing a suit, it is uncomfortable, I will if I have to wear it”, - might a Don Quixote say. When for a Holmes, for example, formal clothes are not an inconvenience. I know some people of this type who wear a tie and a suit even at home. The gamma-quadra are the 'democrats of the idea', their ideas are democratic but in their relationships they are somewhat distanced and 'buttoned up'.
The beta-quadra are the 'formal aristocrats', they are the aristocrats of position and interaction. Delta-quadra is the 'aristocrats of spirit'. This attribute is revealed in beta-quadra in a more formal, external way whereas in delta-quadra – more internally, deeply and ideologically. But they both share distanced and vertical relationships.
During the experiments these groups are easy to distinguish. The aristocrats try to distance themselves from others as much as possible, they never interrupt anybody; democrats speak all at once, frequently neglecting the common norms of politeness.