Subterranean vs Reinin dichotomies

[Beautiful sky]

You misunderstood me, and I don't know why, being an EII, as you said you are. I want to start at the beginning of the process.

Process type:

o things sequentially, from the beginning to the end.

Which book, literature, or source are we using for this base of analysis? Are we using Filatova or Aushra, or using both or something else?

The Reinin dichotomies are not "the basics", they make a mess out of the original Model-A theory. From when I last checked for example, I typed as an ILE according to the Reinin dichotomies, and did not agree with all the dichotomies for that type. They simply don't provide a useful analysis. My suggestion was that you should describe yourself more in terms of the information elements.

Ok. Where would you like to start? Where is this "beginning" point?

I have typed you as SLI.

[Not A Communist Shill]

I copied your post from the other thread.

From what I can tell, at the moment I am:
constructivist
negativist
statics
probably process
probably yielding
probably tactical
probably judicious

I may hurt my head unnecessarily trying to determine the others at some other time.

[Not A Communist Shill]

7th August 2007

By Reinin dichotomies, I'm pretty sure I'm (though it's negotiable):

Democracy
Carefree
Compliance
Static
Constructivist
Asking
Reasonable

And less sure of:

Tactics
Right (Process)
Negativism
Merry

[Beautiful sky]

I copied your post from the other thread.

From what I can tell, at the moment I am:
constructivist
negativist
statics
probably process
probably yielding
probably tactical
probably judicious

I may hurt my head unnecessarily trying to determine the others at some other time.

This would actually make you closer to an LSE. You definitely come off as Delta.

[Not A Communist Shill]

based on just the ones I've done today, according to teh Reinin Calculator:
30% - ENTP (Дон Кихот, ИЛЭ)
19% - ISFJ (Драйзер, ЭСИ)
10% - INFJ (Достоевский, ЭИИ)
7% - ENFP (Гексли, ИЭЭ)
7% - INTP (Бальзак, ИЛИ)
6% - ESTP (Жуков, СЛЭ)
6% - ESTJ (Штирлиц, ЛСЭ)
3% - ESFJ (Гюго, ЭСЭ)
3% - ISTJ (Максим Горький, ЛСИ)
2% - ENFJ (Гамлет, ЭИЭ)
2% - INTJ (Робеспьер, ЛИИ)
2% - ISFP (Дюма, СЭИ)
1% - ESFP (Наполеон, СЭЭ)
1% - INFP (Есенин, ИЭИ)
1% - ISTP (Габен, СЛИ)
0% - ENTJ (Джек Лондон, ЛИЭ)

[Beautiful sky]

I described myself in informational aspects in the other thread. I am now looking at this thread.

[Not A Communist Shill]

the Reinin Calculator tries to include such dichotomies as E\I, I\S, T\F, P\J in it, even though those aren't Reinin dichotomies. I didn't include those in the evaluation, but simply, I really don't consider myself an extroverted person, and I certainly wouldn't consider myself leading.

[Beautiful sky]

the Reinin Calculator tries to include such dichotomies as E\I, I\S, T\F, P\J in it, even though those aren't Reinin dichotomies. I didn't include those in the evaluation, but simply, I really don't consider myself an extroverted person, and I certainly wouldn't consider myself leading.

Ok. Objects. How do you relate to them? As they are or do you internalize them and manipulate them to produce another affect of them? When you're in the introverted world, what are you doing? Listening to music? What's in your dreams/visions/fantasies? Do you react then find yourself later having over reacted? or Do you think of the things to react on before you react?

When I look at an object, like curtains, for example, I can't see them from up close; the details confuse me and blur the picture; I see shape, which I consider to be Si and details of objects, I consider to be Se. Si base and activators like myself are more comfortable with shape not detail, so we can obscure, manipulate the object in our minds. I get more headache like when I have to look and remember details on things. My SEE friends are much better at looking at all the intricate details of things and can often be quite aesthetic.

[Not A Communist Shill]

the Reinin Calculator tries to include such dichotomies as E\I, I\S, T\F, P\J in it, even though those aren't Reinin dichotomies. I didn't include those in the evaluation, but simply, I really don't consider myself an extroverted person, and I certainly wouldn't consider myself leading.

Ok. Objects. How do you relate to them? As they are or do you internalize them and manipulate them to produce another affect of them? When you're in the introverted world, what are you doing? Listening to music? What's in your dreams/visions/fantasies? Do you react then find yourself later having over reacted? or Do you think of the things to react on before you react?

It is rather hard to evaluate how I evaluate objects in relation to other people, but I suppose I feel lazy-eyed and consider the objects in my head rather than consider what they are doing immediately. This doesn't mean that I am unable to interact with Objects in the real world though.

By introverted world, I presume you mean my head. In my head, when I am awake at least, what I see is a camera obscura-type image (I don't mean it's back-to-front, merely not as detailed) of past or imagined events for example.

My dreams/visions/fantasies are my own private business, but they tend to involve the past or the future rather than anything else but I would think all such dreams/visions/fantasies are timeless.

[Beautiful sky]

Ok. Objects. How do you relate to them? As they are or do you internalize them and manipulate them to produce another affect of them? When you're in the introverted world, what are you doing? Listening to music? What's in your dreams/visions/fantasies? Do you react then find yourself later having over reacted? or Do you think of the things to react on before you react?

It is rather hard to evaluate how I evaluate objects in relation to other people, but I suppose I feel lazy-eyed and consider the objects in my head rather than consider what they are doing immediately. This doesn't mean that I am unable to interact with Objects in the real world though.

By introverted world, I presume you mean my head. In my head, when I am awake at least, what I see is a camera obscura-type image (I don't mean it's back-to-front, merely not as detailed) of past or imagined events for example.

My dreams/visions/fantasies are my own private business, but they tend to involve the past or the future rather than anything else but I would think all such dreams/visions/fantasies are timeless.

And the way you react?

[Not A Communist Shill]

And the way you react?

oh, I often evaluate past events and future scenarios in my head (how I've reacted or might reacted) all the time, but this can be understood without the use of the Reinin dichotomies.

[Beautiful sky]

And the way you react?

oh, I often evaluate past events and future scenarios in my head (how I've reacted or might reacted) all the time, but this can be understood without the use of the Reinin dichotomies.

I really like that you created this thread so I can have a monologue with you; thank you. I appreciate that very much as it allows me to do what I'm most comfortable with. I often get confuses and don't know what to post to or react to as many people contribute to a thread at once and it throws me off (you can say, overloaded sensations and a poor ability to judge which direction to focus on visually).

If you like this as well, than you and I are both EII.

[Not A Communist Shill]

I'm just one of those people that don't like things going off-topic too much...I don't think that's particularly EII-specific. I don't think I would have minded discussing this with many people at once (on a forum) either...as for discussing things in groups elsewhere, I don't think wanting to limit discussion to just a few individuals is an EII-only trait either.

There are eight types that fit into the Declaring group that might match these traits as it is, and at least one other Reinin dichotomy does so as well.

[Beautiful sky]

You are not good with analysis? You're very good with describing your internal state. That


You're not SEI, ESE, LSI or SLE because you're not a Merry type, you're serious.

You're not LSI because the are Emotives and there are very few emotional elements present in your posts.

You may observe that Mountain Dew, who I've typed as LSI and a Emotive type, in his beginning posts had a tone of emotional icons and elements.

Which brings you to Gamma and Delta types.

My stomach is acting up due to my ulcer but you can see how you would be excluded from Gamma.

You said you were a negative type and that would go either to SLI from the above or EII if you're a positive type.

[Crispy]

My stomach is acting up due to my ulcer but you can see how you would be excluded from Gamma.

This is the best argument I've seen on the forum.

Also SLI is positivist.

[Beautiful sky]

My stomach is acting up due to my ulcer but you can see how you would be excluded from Gamma.

This is the best argument I've seen on the forum.

Also SLI is positivist.

Oh, missed a detail, sorry..

[Crispy]

Btw you still haven't typed me maritsa, or at least on that list.

[Beautiful sky]

Btw you still haven't typed me maritsa, or at least on that list.

I PM'd it to you just now.

[Not A Communist Shill]

You are not good with analysis?

Yes, that's certainly Declaring.

You're not SEI, ESE, LSI or SLE because you're not a Merry type, you're serious.

You're not LSI because Constructive and there are very few emotional elements present in your posts.

You may observe that Mountain Dew, who I've typed as LSI and a Constructive type, in his beginning posts had a tone of emotional icons and elements.

Which brings you to Gamma and Delta types and because you're a declaring type, you're in Delta EII.

My stomach is acting up due to my ulcer but you can see how you would be excluded from Gamma.

I'm sorry to hear that...

I'm not convinced that whether I'm an asker or a declarer can easily be answered, but I would think that my style tends to be on the side of being an asker, as I am often keen to get clarification on even the most tedious of points, perhaps as a means of accommodating other people or to prevent unnecessary conflict much later. There are other aspects between the two extremes I associate with, but it really is tedious trying to evaluate that.

Trying to place me into Merry or Serious doesn't do justice to who I am as an individual. I don't think I'm particularly bad at noticing the emotional background, I merely go into lulls where I don't care to do anything with it, or am able to change it myself...which would be more in tune with the Merry dichotomy. I think traditionally, it really has been more natural to be as the Merry dichotomy describes. I don't find work "necessarily fun", and yet I don't think fun is "a state of constant excitement that one cannot confuse with leisure or rest".

You are making an assessment of me using Reinin dichotomies I am unclear about to mold me into fitting the typing of EII. I don't have a problem with being typed as an EII, as I think there are good reasons for that typing, but I don't think the usage of Reinin dichotomies is helpful.

[Crispy]

If you are still relying on wikisocion to provide meaningful reinen dichotomy descriptions, then you really need an UPGRADE

[717495]

I used these ones http://forum.socionix.com/topic/3327...n-dichotomies/ and was surprised by the accuracy.

My position might have been similar to yours, in that I thought based on another source, ie. wikisocion Reinin Dichotomies had me at ILE. That test gave me INFJ, but it's just a test.

[717495]

The article comes directly translated from the source.

Likewise, you can Reinin type me yourself. I've looked those over for myself with strong assurance that they fit quite well.

[Trevor]

reinin dichotomies > subterranean

[Beautiful sky]

You are not good with analysis?

Yes, that's certainly Declaring.

You're not SEI, ESE, LSI or SLE because you're not a Merry type, you're serious.

You're not LSI because Constructive and there are very few emotional elements present in your posts.

You may observe that Mountain Dew, who I've typed as LSI and a Constructive type, in his beginning posts had a tone of emotional icons and elements.

Which brings you to Gamma and Delta types and because you're a declaring type, you're in Delta EII.

My stomach is acting up due to my ulcer but you can see how you would be excluded from Gamma.

I'm sorry to hear that...

I'm not convinced that whether I'm an asker or a declarer can easily be answered, but I would think that my style tends to be on the side of being an asker, as I am often keen to get clarification on even the most tedious of points, perhaps as a means of accommodating other people or to prevent unnecessary conflict much later. There are other aspects between the two extremes I associate with, but it really is tedious trying to evaluate that.

Trying to place me into Merry or Serious doesn't do justice to who I am as an individual. I don't think I'm particularly bad at noticing the emotional background, I merely go into lulls where I don't care to do anything with it, or am able to change it myself...which would be more in tune with the Merry dichotomy. I think traditionally, it really has been more natural to be as the Merry dichotomy describes. I don't find work "necessarily fun", and yet I don't think fun is "a state of constant excitement that one cannot confuse with leisure or rest".

You are making an assessment of me using Reinin dichotomies I am unclear about to mold me into fitting the typing of EII. I don't have a problem with being typed as an EII, as I think there are good reasons for that typing, but I don't think the usage of Reinin dichotomies is helpful.

Was this a strategy? To arrive at this point where you explain to me that the dichotomies are not representation of individuality?

[Trevor]

oh, reinin dichotomies > maritsa33 too

[Beautiful sky]

I have a good sense now that SubT, you may be SEI. I confirm that. There's a little puzzle of something that doesn't fit with SLI that I want to exclude but that would only make you fit into an SEI and i don't want to make you fit.

[Not A Communist Shill]

It is years since I replied to this thread, but...how is it that I can be SEI taking the Reinin dichotomies purely at face value, when for example I'm certain I'm a constructivist, most likely a static and an asking type?

[woofwoofl]

It is years since I replied to this thread, but...how is it that I can be SEI taking the Reinin dichotomies purely at face value, when for example I'm certain I'm a constructivist, most likely a static and an asking type?

I expect the answer to be in the bolded part

I'm doing some digging around in Asking/Declaring at the moment, and there's a lot of cool stuff going on in there, but yeah, I never really expect the written descriptions of the more complex mechanics to always be entirely sufficient...

[Aylen]

This thread has my head spinning.

I could not see Sub as SEI, even if I was a contortionist.

[Not A Communist Shill]

Se is anything but reactive. SEE especially so . They are an epithome of headlong rush.

I could really see SLI. But what about Reinins? Ignore or?

edit: what I was talking about Ennea is Asking dichotomy! LOL! Just realised it!

I don't like the dichotomy system

@Maritsa, is this still your position? I had always thought that you focused heavily on Reinin dichotomies (e.g. frequently mentioning whether you consider someone a negativist or a positivist, often based on one sentence or even the use of one word), and often resort to simplistic ideas about Jungian dichotomies (e.g. "S" = details).

[Beautiful sky]

@Maritsa, is this still your position? I had always thought that you focused heavily on Reinin dichotomies (e.g. frequently mentioning whether you consider someone a negativist or a positivist, often based on one sentence or even the use of one word), and often resort to simplistic ideas about Jungian dichotomies (e.g. "S" = details).

No offense but I don't wish to engage with you and whatever type you want to stick with for your self well be it but for the record you and I are not the same type.

[Not A Communist Shill]

No offense but I don't wish to engage with you and whatever type you want to stick with for your self well be it but for the record you and I are not the same type.

I probably agree with you, although I am probably less certain than you are.