I've seen some people using the Reinin dichotomies, some using only a handful of them, and some using none. Do we actually consider them a valid method by which a subject can be typed?
Are the Reinin dichotomies consistent with the 16 TIM?
I've seen some people using the Reinin dichotomies, some using only a handful of them, and some using none. Do we actually consider them a valid method by which a subject can be typed?
Nah
They make sense unless they don't.
Takes lots of observation and material. Typing can be hard.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
Its worth playing around with the Reinin calculator. I think it was yaroslaav who invented it.
It gives your typed based on reinindichotomies
Its pretty cool
http://happylife.kiev.ua/file_archiv...einincalc.htm#
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
So they're saying that the functions, dimensionality and Model A can *cause* these Reinin dichotomies or some kind of personality traits, which are observable traits, even though the functions and the Model A themselves are based on observations... That clearly doesn't make any sense.
You can say that yes, a bunch of accumulation of Reinin dichotomies can create what you'd call a "type". But you can't "deduce" these Reinin Dichotomies from a type.
What can we deduce from a person who is say, a logical and an abstract thinker? Not much. We can say, observe that the person is "democratic". But we didn't "deduce" from that fact he is logical and abstract, we simply observed the fact that he happened to be "democratic". So clearly Reinin dichotomies are something that don't even make sense.
Interesting to think about the way I achieved these results
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
At least one of the Reinin dichotomies seems internally inconsistent with the rest of Socionics: the constructivist/emotivist dichotomy. It's split between duals, and supposedly, it means that duals expect a type of help that the other doesn't naturally supply, because emotivists apparently want emotional support, and constructivists want a practical solution. Does this mean that the Reinin dichotomies imply that duals are not compatible, or is this one potential source of disagreement, or is this dichotomy bullshit/not described properly?
Reinin dichotomies is bs
duals don't share a lot of dichotomies though? duality isnt that there are no differences (in fact duals have more not in common than in common) only that the differences are complimentary. the "descriptions" of the dichotomies inasmuch as they make being on either side seem to conflict with the nature of duality are in all likelihood problems with the descriptions themselves. most the reinin descriptions are awful because theyre trying to pin down with semantics a very vague notion to begin with, so if you begin with the description and read conflict it into and then work backward and say this can't be compatible with duality because it sounds like differences on this axis are antithetical to duality that really points to a problem with the description, not really reinin dichotomies in principles. this is what I mean when I say the major problem is people try to understand reinin via the semantics when they should try to understand him via the math, because thats what is really meant, the words only came later and people struggle to describe what it is an artificial mathematical slicing with more natural language and behavioral descriptions. inasmuch as the latter is the case and the expectation is for a dichotomy to be real it needs to be capable of clean linguistic behavioral description then yeah reinin dichotomies at least right now are kind of bullshitOriginally Posted by Aramas
there's also the fact that its not like duals never have tension or don't see things differently in some sense, like duality is not identity so a kind of divergence of expectations that could potentially divide people can be a good thing in the sense you want a partner that can bite you occassionally or sees things that you dont... one of the major issues in relationships is understanding that not all people want exactly the same thing when they express emotions and its a fine line between realizing the constructivist/emotivist version of that and the difference between say hamlets histrionics compared to some other type. in other words, it may be good to realize that in principle differences exist with regard to people being constructivists/emotivists, but once you understand that it doesn't mean hamlet is now good for all, there is still a bridge too far for a healthy relationship for some. in other words a lot of this is being on the proper side of that difference to the appropriate degree and learning that concept to the degree that is good for both parties, not a strict either/or (either you don't need to do this, i.e.: identity is best, or if you learn it suddenly all forms of it are "healthy": everyone is ready for hamlet, etc)
That would be an ecumenical matter.
Yes, they can be a valid method, but they can be easy to misuse, too.
Model A is much more useful for typing, but I think the reinin dichotomies are the future of socionics methodology.
You have to understand that the mathematical groups were created before the dichotomies were defined, so even though they are part of the same system, some work better than others. The best in my opinion being the quadra values, which are the basis of intertype complementation, the worst being the asking - declaring dichotomy.
Dichotomies can be defined two way: with a general definition, and with information metabolism. You are probably used to the general way: a name that summarizes the group behavior, and a list of contrasting traits, but they can also be defined with information metabolism.
For example, two naming conventions for the quadra values, verses the information metabolism definition
Wikisocion Names World Socionics Society Name Valued Element Subdued Elements Judicious World-Accepting Ne, Si Se, Ni Decisive World Rejecting Se, Ni Ne, Si Merry Clarity Seeking Fe, Ti Te, Fi Serious Integrity Seeking Te, Fi Fe, Ti
Pretty much everyone agrees on the information metabolism definition, but people will argue forever about the general names. We do need good names, but the fundamental dynamic is much more important.
Only 7 reinin dichotomies (plus the original 4 Jungian dichotomies) have an information metabolism definition in model A. These 11 dichotomies are good imho, except for tactical / strategic.
All of them, even the Jungian basis, can be improved, and I hope that is a focus of future research.
/
This is cool! Is yaroslaav part of the forum, or if not, do you know how to contact him?
Last edited by Lao Tzunami; 06-01-2018 at 02:00 AM.
Has anyone even thought about how the Reinin dichotomies even came about...? Sheesh... it's like people think that these things just magically appear out of nowhere, like magical thinking.
So obviously, the Reinin dichotomies must be based on observations. Which means that at best, Reinin dichotomies are just a more detailed summaries of observations of types. Except that it's not really, it's supposed to be mathematically deduced from Model A. So Reinin dichotomies are both derived from observations of each types, AND it's deduced from Model A. I don't think that makes any sense. It's like combining the concrete observations with the abstract. Can you start with something abstract, with a concrete result? Yes... if you plug in the concrete to the abstract. It would be like this: abstract(concrete1) -> concrete2. But Reinin dichotomies are saying that you can turn from concrete1 -> abstract -> concrete1. I think that is circular. Probably because it's using the inductivist method.
that's really cool, I left out anything I wasn't absolutely sure of and it still put out results, which is nice because its sort of like if you could actually answer all of those categories with any degree of confidence you'd already know your type
test.jpg
Yeah its cool and really smart. I like that one doesnt have to be certain about the dichotomies. It gives probabilities for your type. It kindof works as a type test.
There is a an original old thread about it. Search for Reinin calculator or something like that. Yaroslaav is a member.]
Here it is btw: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...es-Now-ONLINE-)))
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
I Reinin calculated Trump as SEE (didn't put anything in E/I, N/S, T/F and p/j).
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
Yeah but they actually seem to work?
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
this calculator is. Yaroslaav has done a great job.
I just took the test. Left out the jungian dichotomies and put something into the rest based on my vague understanding of the dichotomies.
Got ISFP as the most probable type.
I'm really surprised
reinin.png
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
Well it would have to work, because if something is observed in the past (which we assume is true and consistent), then it is only be possible that it COULD happen in the future. So there is nothing in the future observation that could contradict it. It's only entirely possible that any of the Reinin dichotomies COULD be observed in a person. Hence why Reinin dichotomies become circular and irrefutable.
Hume: No logically possible future observation can ever contradict the class of past observations.
Most reinin dichomoties break the rules for blocks and functions.
If you get caught up in trying to put yourself or someone else into every category, then no, they're not useful. But if you look at just the ones you're sure of (and that calculator is an excellent way to do that) then they can be helpful. Also, some dichotomies are more useful in general than others in making determinations. When testing whether the dichotomies actually pan out the way they should I know that some didn't, while others did, and I'd have to look up which ones were which as I don't remember off the top of my head.
The calculator is cool though. It's quick and easy too. I put in just the 3 dichotomies I'm most sure of (tactical, process, static) and it gave me ILE and LSI as my best choices, so narrowing down can happen quickly. Removing static from the equation, and leaving only the 2 most clear ones only adds 2 additional types. Problems could arise with this method though if you choose hazy dichotomies that aren't well-defined, ones you don't fully understand or ones that aren't the best at type determination.
reinin.PNG
Very interesting! I got LII.
According to my self assement I'm ILE > ILI , but I don't know if the assessment of myself is correct without some common reference.
Yes, Renin dichotomies is (the) best (typing) system.
For me definitly: Judicious > Decisive + Merry > Serious, which make me a member of the alpha quadra, I guess.
Last edited by WinnieW; 06-02-2018 at 09:36 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
