-

[Expat]

Adding to this.

The "quadra dichotomies", that is, Merry/Serious and Resolute/Reasonable, are simply divisions by quadra values, and therefore mainstream model A socionics; they don't "need" Reinin to be used or to be valid. The remaining quadra dichotomy, Aristocracy/Democracy, is another story.

Obviously, as has been pointed out many times, it may sound odd that, for instance, the LSI is "Merry" and the IEE is "Serious" -- that is why it is necessary to understand what the Fe-Ti/Fi-Te quadra divide acually means. But, still, that is exactly what Reinin and Augusta meant when they "discovered" that dichotomy.

[Phaedrus]

You are neither listening nor comprehending. If Expat does not answer you, it's because you are on ignore. His silence is not proof of the validity of what you say. It is only proof that he has you on ignore. Any other speculation is spurious at best.

Expat has made a mistake, and he knows it. His silence is of course no proof that I am right (what an utterly stupid idea) because whatever Expat says or doesn't say I am right and he is wrong about the Subjectivist/Objectivist dichotomy. And the proof of that is in plain view for everyone to see if you read the relevant material on the subject. But if Expat doesn't comment on the corrections I have made, he admits that he is wrong.

Everybody has to accept that I am right on this, because I have stated a very simple but indisputably objective truth about the Subjectivist/Objectivist and Merry/Serious dichotomies. They are two dichotomies, not one. This is utterly trivial. If you say that I am wrong about this, you only prove that you are an idiot, because it is just a fact that I am right. You can't deny it.

[Joy]

[Phaedrus]

Thank you. You are correct.

I wonder, though, why it is necessary for you (or anyone) to say what you are saying. I mean - can anyone be so incredibly stupid as to assume that one's silence in a debate in an online forum means validation of someone else's point? Unbelievable.

Now you have proven that you are are an asshole, Expat. Why? Because you refuse to admit an obvious mistake that you have made. That is of course typical ENTj behaviour, but it is nevertheless totally unacceptable. You are wrong, and you know that you are wrong, but yet you refuse to admit it. That makes you a despicable creature. Your behaviour is worthy of no less than our strongest contempt.

[krieger]

The evidence speaks in Expat's favor.

[Phaedrus]

Proof that Expat is an idiot:

Merry (Fe) and Subjective (Ti) (I II):
1.Good at noticing emotional background and perceive the emotional aspect (particularly 'fun') separate from the activity.
2.'Getting to know someone' happens naturally, and they are well aware of the purpose(s) for which they are meeting. The proper emotional distance is easily established, adapted/regulated, and manipulated, and they easily decrease distance through their emotional 'brilliance'. A person's name (and other formalities) are peripheral to their relation with and interest in them, and thus they don't care much about formal introductions..
3.Not inclined to deduce 'objective truths' from their own and others' experiences – everything is relative. This relativity is perceived as an extenuation of the differing beliefs, opinions, intentions, etc. of each person. Accordingly, another person's actions are judged as correct or incorrect according to a set of subjective criteria. They attempt to compare others' views to their own, and to explain their own views in order to make sure that all parties understand the concepts being spoken of.
4.They are inclined to propose (or impose) another conception of the situation ('look at it this way'). If they think something is done incorrectly, they will ask WHY it was done that way. When talking about optimums, they are inclined to do it subjectively ('optimum compared to what?').
5.“Fun is involvement, active participation; a state of constant excitement that one cannot confuse with leisure or rest.” “I have my own ideas about how things should be done – a 'mind of my own' – but so does everyone else.” [Ed.: Fun appears to be connected with Fe]

Serious (Fi) and Objective (Te) (III IV):
1.Bad at noticing emotional background and do not separate the emotional aspect (particularly 'fun') from the activity.
2.Acquaintance with others is established by ritual (e.g., introduction), and they prefer if the context of interaction is externally set (eg, by a mediator (think 'arranged marriages') or situation) so that they can skip the first phases and begin closer interaction. They approach others through stages defined by 'rules' and 'rituals', which may be created by themselves and/or already existing; thus, they are very aware of the stages of the process of acquaintance – e.g., when a person is no longer a stranger. The title, name, and any other information about the other person are considered important, and for this reason formal introduction is important.
3.Inclined to believe there are 'objective truths' – the truth is not always relative. Therefore, they believe that there are two types of actions/perspectives: those which are subjective (connected with personal preferences and motivations) and those which are objective (only one 'correct' or 'best' way of doing something). Whether something is correct or not is judged by comparing it with what they see as 'objectively correct'. In disagreement, they first attempt to make sure that the other person understands the concepts and terms 'correctly'.
4. They are inclined to offer (or impose) what they see as the 'best' or 'correct' way of doing something ('it should be done like this'). If they think something is done incorrectly, they ask WHO did it that way. When speaking of optimums, they are inclined to do so objectively (the 'absolute' optimum).
5.“It is difficult for me to differentiate between activity/work and fun; work is necessarily fun – without an element of entertainment, it would be impossible” “If something is being done the wrong way? Oy! IMO, there is only one proper way to 'hammer a nail'” [Ed.: Fun appears to be connected to Te]

[Joy]

Wrong. Subjectivist/Objectivist is the Ti/Te divide, Merry/Serious is the Fe/Fi divide. They are not the same thing. What is true of Subjectivist is true of Ti, what is true of Objectivist is true of Te, what is true of Merry is true of Fe, and what is true of Serious is true of Fi. You can of course put all of them together, as in your Fe-Ti/Fi-Te quadra divide, but in that case you should also be aware of the fundamental differences between the Subjectivist/Objectivist and the Merry/Serious divide.

The essence of the Subjectivist/Objectivist divide has already been described by Jung in Psychological Types in the chapters on Te and Ti, where he clearly describes Ti as Subjectivist (but not using that exact term of course) and Te as Objectivist.

Maybe so, but is that really a Reinin dichotomy then?

[Phaedrus]

Maybe so, but is that really a Reinin dichotomy then?

Yes. And even if it were not, it would still be a correct dichotomy, because it is confirmed by empirical observations and has already been described by Jung in Psychological Types. Jung has described the exact same difference between Te and Ti as is referred to in the Objectivist/Subjectivist dichotomy.

Also, I do think that the Merry/Serious dichotomy also applies to logical types. It may not as apparent in many logical types as it is in many ethical types, but it's still present.

Yes, of course. Because Gamma NTs and Delta STs value Fi more than Fe, and Alpha NTs and Beta STs value Fe more than Fi.

[Joy]

I'm not saying that I disagree with the subjectivist/objectivist dichotomy (Ti relates to fields and Te relates to objects, after all), and that's not what's being disputed.

Yes.

Can you source that?

Yes, of course. Because Gamma NTs and Delta STs value Fi more than Fe, and Alpha NTs and Beta STs value Fe more than Fi.

Yeah, that's what I was getting at. I thought you were saying that Merry/Serious only applies to ethical types, which is why I posted what I did.

[Phaedrus]

Can you source that?

What more source do you need? Don't you see that Merry refers to Fe, that Serious refers to Fi, that Subjectivist refers to Ti, and that Objectivist refers to Te -- and that it all makes perfect sense (read the description of each dichotomy)? The Subjectivist/Objectivist and the Merry/Serious dichotomy are put together because all Merry (Fe) quadra types are also Subjectivist (Ti) quadra types, and all Serious (Fi) quadra types are also Objectivist (Te) quadra types.

And of course Subjectivist is Ti and Objectivist is Te, because all of that comes from Jung.

[krieger]

What more source do you need? Don't you see that Merry refers to Fe, that Serious refers to Fi, that Subjectivist refers to Ti, and that Objectivist refers to Te -- and that it all makes perfect sense (read the description of each dichotomy)?

But does the author mean "has Ti in the ego block" or "values Ti"? This is not clear from those header. In the latter case, the two "dichotomies" coincide and can be used interchangeably.

Furthermore it is not clear wether those parenthesis marks were edited in by a translator or whether they were there in the original. Isn't it strange that they are missing in Expat's version? The format of "Merry (subjectivist)" in Expat's version is quite clear on them being equivalent.

[Joy]

What more source do you need? Don't you see that Merry refers to Fe, that Serious refers to Fi, that Subjectivist refers to Ti, and that Objectivist refers to Te -- and that it all makes perfect sense (read the description of each dichotomy)? The Subjectivist/Objectivist and the Merry/Serious dichotomy are put together because all Merry (Fe) quadra types are also Subjectivist (Ti) quadra types, and all Serious (Fi) quadra types are also Objectivist (Te) quadra types.

And of course Subjectivist is Ti and Objectivist is Te, because all of that comes from Jung.

So this translation of Reinin's article is the reason that the subjective/objective dichotomy is one of Reinin's dichotomies?

[Expat]

Mentioning the obvious --

The Reinin dichotomies divide the 16 types into two groups of 8, each with supposedly opposing characteristics. That's why they are dichotomies.

So, if you say that one dichotomy is "merry", that means that 8 types are "merry", and that 8 types are "serious".

So, if both objectivist/subjectivist and serious/merry divide the 16 types along the Alpha/Beta vs Gamma/Delta divide - which is one dichotomy, then, by definition, Merry/Serious and Subjectivist/Objectivist is one and the same Reinin dichotomy.

[Brilliand]

Of course they exist - we've defined them, haven't we? Whether their descriptions are true or not is another matter.

I for one find the dichotomies very useful for talking about groups of types, even if being on one side or the other of a dichotomy says nothing about you. For instance, if I want to talk about me and my dual and both of our conflictors, I say "Democratic farsighted" or "Democratic obstinate" and if you can't figure out what I'm talking about, at least I don't have to be the one to explain it.

This is, of course, the mathematical certainty that I am so fond of - I have probably done very little t answer the original question.

[Phaedrus]

But does the author mean "has Ti in the ego block" or "values Ti"? This is not clear from those header. In the latter case, the two "dichotomies" coincide and can be used interchangeably.

It doesn't matter what the author means. Subjectivist is still Ti, Objectivist is still Te, Merry is still Fe, and Serious is still Fi. And Subjectivist is still not the same thing as Merry (and therefore Expat's two statements that Merry = Subjectivist and Serious = Objectivist are both false). That they coincide with the same quadras is irrelevant.

Furthermore it is not clear wether those parenthesis marks were edited in by a translator or whether they were there in the original. Isn't it strange that they are missing in Expat's version? The format of "Merry (subjectivist)" in Expat's version is quite clear on them being equivalent.

Isn't it even more strange that both you and Expat have assumed that they are the same dichotomy without checking the descriptions of these dichotomies? It is extremely obvious from the descriptions of Merry and Serious that they refer to Fe and Fi, and it is equally obvious from the descriptions of Subjectivist and Objectivist that they refer to Ti and Te. And yet you have missed that.

[Joy]

Mentioning the obvious --

The Reinin dichotomies divide the 16 types into two groups of 8, each with supposedly opposing characteristics. That's why they are dichotomies.

So, if you say that one dichotomy is "merry", that means that 8 types are "merry", and that 8 types are "serious".

So, if both objectivist/subjectivist and serious/merry divide the 16 types along the Alpha/Beta vs Gamma/Delta divide - which is one dichotomy, then, by definition, Merry/Serious and Subjectivist/Objectivist is one and the same Reinin dichotomy.

Yes, good point.

[Phaedrus]

Mentioning the obvious --

The Reinin dichotomies divide the 16 types into two groups of 8, each with supposedly opposing characteristics. That's why they are dichotomies.

So, if you say that one dichotomy is "merry", that means that 8 types are "merry", and that 8 types are "serious".

So, if both objectivist/subjectivist and serious/merry divide the 16 types along the Alpha/Beta vs Gamma/Delta divide - which is one dichotomy, then, by definition, Merry/Serious and Subjectivist/Objectivist is one and the same Reinin dichotomy.

Now you are just playing with words, and you assume more than what is explicitly stated in that article. The truth still stands as I have stated it. Merry is Fe, Serious is Fi, Subjectivist is Ti, and Objectivist is Te. That is obvious from the descriptions of each dichotomy. And whatever Reinin might have thought about it, the most essential differences between Subjectivist and Objectivist have already been described by Jung in Psychological Types.

The difference betwen Subjectivist and Objectivist is the difference between Ti and Te. Period.

[Brilliand]

Now you are just playing with words, and you assume more than what is explicitly stated in that article. The truth still stands as I have stated it. Merry is Fe, Serious is Fi, Subjectivist is Ti, and Objectivist is Te. That is obvious from the descriptions of each dichotomy. And whatever Reinin might have thought about it, the most essential differences between Subjectivist and Objectivist have already been described by Jung in Psychological Types.

The difference betwen Subjectivist and Objectivist is the difference between Ti and Te. Period.

On the other hand, the difference between Merry and Serious will always accompany the difference between Subjectivist and Objectivist. I have always thought of Merry/Serious as the difference between and , and while that may not be strictly true, it makes no difference: the two dichotomies can be safely rolled into one.

Incidentally, I think it is wrong to ever say "Period." There is always another hand.

[Joy]

Merry is Fe-related, Serious is Fi-related, Subjectivist is Ti-related, and Objectivist is Te-related.

This does not change the fact that, technically speaking, in order for the dichotomy to work, all types have to be either one or the other of two possibilities. If there were 4 subjectivist types, 4 objectivist types, 4 merry types, and 4 serious types... they wouldn't be called dichotomies. They'd be called.... quadotomies or something like that.

[Phaedrus]

On the other hand, the difference between Merry and Serious will always accompany the difference between Subjectivist and Objectivist.

Yes, of course. So what?

I have always thought of Merry/Serious as the difference between and , and while that may not be strictly true, it makes no difference: the two dichotomies can be safely rolled into one.

The two dichotomies can safely be rolled into one if we want to avoid clarity and instead reward muddled thinking.

One of the suggested hypotheses in that article is that ethics strengthens Merry and that logic strengthens Serious. If that would be true we could discuss whether perhaps the ENTj (or the ESTj) is a better personification of Serious than the ISFj (or the INFj). And perhaps the INTp embodies Objectivist even more than the ENTj or the ESTj -- which is actually what we might expect based on type descriptions and empirical observations of the behaviours of these types. But that is of minor importance here.

What is most important is to realize that the divide between Objectivists and Subjectivists is the exact same difference as the one described in Jung's Psychological Types between Extraverted Thinking (Te) and Introverted Thinking (Ti). The fact that people don't see this clearly is a major cause of mistypings.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Mentioning the obvious --

The Reinin dichotomies divide the 16 types into two groups of 8, each with supposedly opposing characteristics. That's why they are dichotomies.

So, if you say that one dichotomy is "merry", that means that 8 types are "merry", and that 8 types are "serious".

So, if both objectivist/subjectivist and serious/merry divide the 16 types along the Alpha/Beta vs Gamma/Delta divide - which is one dichotomy, then, by definition, Merry/Serious and Subjectivist/Objectivist is one and the same Reinin dichotomy.

Why not say that gamma/delta are serious when feeling, and objectivist when thinking?

[Kristiina]

From my experience:

Process/Result exists, as does Static/Dynamic... We wouldn't be able to speak of functions the way we do if the latter didn't exist (function blocks are just clubs interposed with Static/Dynamic)... As for the former, we could, in turn, not speak about +/- if these didn't exist, yet we do and think this makes sense, so under the same mentality Process/Result is in.

Positivist/negativist is formed by interposing Process/Result and Static/Dynamic. It is only half-useful. The two variants of either should not be confused as they are different and only superficially similar. Positivist/negativist itself denotes a very superficial quality. Positive/Result/Dynamic and Positive/Process/Static are both "positive" but still in many respects irreconcileably different. Same goes for Negative/Result/Static and Negative/Process/Dynamic.

The best way to use the above is to use them in conjunction; in other words using the following groups instead:

Positive/Result/Dynamic
Negative/Process/Dynamic
Negative/Result/Static
Positive/Process/Static

These can be used as "sub-temperaments" and can help making it easier to understand the similarity between types that succeed eachother in the sing of supervision... For example, INTj, ESTp, ISFj and ENFp are all Negative/Result/Static, and there are certain behaviours that can be linked to this quality. (in this case, quick, decisive behavior, quickly getting one's bearings, seeing all relevant sides to an issue quickly, etc. Also: an intense gaze, penetrating stare)

Aristocrat/Democrat exists aswell, but is redundant when one already uses quadras and clubs. Aristocrat = beta OR delta AND nf OR st, Democrat = alpha OR gamma AND nt OR sf

Taciturn/Narrator: another superficial trait. Limited usability. Again, Static and Dynamic versions are very much different and not to be confused.... Use Taciturn/Democrat/Static, Narrator/Aristocrat/Static, Narrator/Democrat/Dynamic, Taciturn/Aristocrat/Static instead.... Better yet, combine them with quadra + club as a way of understanding what superficial qualities are to be associated with these: all gamma NTs are narrators, all alpha NTs are taciturns, all beta NFs are taciturns, all beta STs are narrators, etc.

Merry/Serious and Reasonable/Resolute follow directly from the intertype relations. People who are on the same "side" of either divide simply "get along well" in a certain way according to intertype relation theory. Can't deny that these work and that they are important.

The quadras, too, are simply ways of grouping together people that get along well and should be understood as such. They are simply formed when Merry/Serious and Reasonable/Resolute are combined.

Dichotomies that I have not seen any validation for (too superficial to merit naming):
Emotivist (accepting thinking OR creating feeling)
Constructivist (accepting feeling OR creating thinking)
Tactical (accepting intuition OR creating sensing)
Stategic (accepting sensing OR creating intuition)
Obstinate (accepting merry OR creating serious)
Compliant (accepting serious OR creating merry)
Carefree (accepting reasonable OR creating resolute)
Foresight (accepting resolute OR creating reasonable)

But: the fact that most Accepting functions are associated with traits that are almost opposite to the function's own nature (such as Accepting Thinking = Emotivist, Accepting Sensing = Strategic) suggests that accepting functions are milder variants of a function than creating functions... For example, you can infer from the fact that a person has a certain polite emotional flair, that he is an accepting thinker as opposed to a creating thinker. The dichotomies themselves are not really necessary for this insight, though. Just: accepting = mild, creating = fanatic.

Apologies for the lack of justification, I'm just relating what has been working for me.

this post was very useful and interesting for me. I actually made notes and all. Just wanted to say: is waaaay cool!

I find asker-declarer (same as taciturn-narrator, right?) to be the most useful dichotomy. I can twist and turn the A model any way I like so that it fits my own theory of what type I think the other person is, but there's no arguing that in a conversation this dichotomy is very clear and it helps me avoid clearly bad typings.

[Phaedrus]

I find asker-declarer (same as taciturn-narrator, right?) to be the most useful dichotomy.

It isn't.

I can twist and turn the A model any way I like so that it fits my own theory of what type I think the other person is, but there's no arguing that in a conversation this dichotomy is very clear and it helps me avoid clearly bad typings.

This is one of the dichotomies that definitely should not be used as a typing tool in the way you describe. It will most likely lead to incorrect typings in many cases, if you use it as an indication of a person's type in conversations. The types don't act in a simple way according to that dichotomy is described. The fact that you find it "very clear" is a devil's trap.

[Expat]

Why not say that gamma/delta are serious when feeling, and objectivist when thinking?

What would be the point of that?

[krieger]

asker-declarer (same as taciturn-narrator, right?)

They've been used interchangeably for as long as I can remember.

I can twist and turn the A model any way I like so that it fits my own theory of what type I think the other person is, but there's no arguing that in a conversation this dichotomy is very clear and it helps me avoid clearly bad typings.

Good to hear it been working out well for you. I've never been very successful with it myself, hence why I think it to be superficial. It seems to me that Ej types like yourself and Smilingeyes have an easier time working with the "face-value" traits of socionics, though. Smilingeyes, too, was very big on Positivist/Negativist, Taciturn/Narrator and even the large cycle dichotomies that I myself can't work with at all.

this post was very useful and interesting for me. I actually made notes and all. Just wanted to say: is waaaay cool!

Most of what I wrote in that post was already available in my "abstract function description" thread in the alternative socionics board. Click the link in my sig and see if you find more to your liking.

[Warlord]

Only in a very loose sense:

1) How they are named is an inaccurate description what they are about.
2) They aren't really that dichotomic in practice.
...

Don't use them to type.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

I think all dichotomies are shitty. As in once you begin to really know who somebody is, and all of their subtleties/complexities/contradictions etc, they start losing their usefulness. Just goes to show you that the majority of psychologists are filth and just use all this shit as an excuse to avoid human interaction instead of gaining the balls necessary to overcome their own personal problems. But it is the human condition...

I think they project a good image though, much like porn. Many things look good without really feeling good, or being good. 'Mind plays tricks on me' indeed.

Love (beyond duality, dichotomies, balance and transcendence of genders) and music/rhythm, and bodily sensations (testing ideals) is what lies beyond psychological (ghostly, undead) thinking.

I used to like them when I was immature, but then I'm proud to say I outgrew them.

Once I learn who somebody is I can no longer categorize them in these particular fashions.

[Kristiina]

shut the hell up, dee.

i don't care.

Even in hindsight, I can see why strrng was banned. And I want to point your attention to this - Niffweed is barely any better. Or maybe he's not better at all. Mean person. Dragging everyone to his level on unhappyness. Niffweed probably says demotivating stuff more often than strrng ever did.

[Park]

Even in hindsight, I can see why strrng was banned. And I want to point your attention to this - Niffweed is barely any better. Or maybe he's not better at all. Mean person. Dragging everyone to his level on unhappyness. Niffweed probably says demotivating stuff more often than strrng ever did.

+1

[Ezra]

Of course Reinin dichotomies exist; what do you think Reinin is famous for?

The question is not whether or not they exist, but whether or not we should apply them to socionics; that is, whether or not they're actually useful in the context of our wonderful theory.

From the little I know about the dichotomies (since I can't read Russian, I use wikisocion, which has limited information regarding many of the dichotomies), I think there is some use of them, but the evidence that certain dichotomies belong with certain types is fundamentally inconclusive.

[Slacker]

OMG Ezra wrote just what I was going to write. I was coming here to write, "The question isn't whether they exist. It's whether theyr'e useful." LOL.

I think there's something to them but the names and descriptions are so confusing and mixed up that IMO they aren't useful at all. Or almost not at all.

[redbaron]

OMG Ezra wrote just what I was going to write. I was coming here to write, "The question isn't whether they exist. It's whether theyr'e useful." LOL.

I think there's something to them but the names and descriptions are so confusing and mixed up that IMO they aren't useful at all. Or almost not at all.

exactly.

[1981slater]

IMO, Reinin dichotomies work: I suggest new forum members who don't know them to read this:

http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p...in_dichotomies

[ArchonAlarion]

Im not a fan of the dichotomies.

Maybe some sorta work, but... I'll have to see more of them irl before i believe it.