-
-
Last edited by Dee; 02-26-2009 at 02:58 AM.
shut the hell up, dee.
4w3-5w6-8w7
do they exist? they certainly exist as far as being mathematical dichotomies which serve to chop to pieces the socionics model. ie IN+ES/IS+EN (aka carefree/farsighted) is still a dichotomy, albeit one that has no obvious useful application or readily apparent defining characteristic.
to answer a better question, reinin dichotomies are useless and have no readily observable meaning.
Originally Posted by niffweed17
this is basically how i had rephrased his question when i answered it. i also am pretty firmly convinced they only lead to confusion. i do think that some reinin dichotomies have use/are somewhat observable. however, their use as main method in typing a person is nothing short of horrid. basically i think they're useful only to further support a typing - not as a primary method.
6w5 sx
model Φ: -+0
sloan - rcuei
really? which ones? personally, i don't think i can think of any at this point that do both of fit and aren't explicable using functions.
If Phaedrus was here, he would say, "If you understand the Reinin dichotomies clearly, as I do, then you would not be confused. Then you could clearly see the empirical basis of all the Reinin dichotomies, especially the Subjectivist and Objectivist dichotomy, which I have objectively observed. It is a fact that all LII are Subjectivists and all ILI are Objectivists. For all LII and ILI I have observed, this has proven to be true. It is a fact that the Reinin dichotomies are true. My home is made of adobe."
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
i don't care.
Shame. I just thought it best to lay down my bets as to what predictable blathering we will be hearing from Phaedrus about them. But you know that Phaedrus is a perfect example of why overemphasizing the Reinin dichotomies can be disastrous. So that is why you should care.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
no, actually he's a pretty bad example given his extraordinarily selective usage of them. subjectivist/objectivist is not even mainstream reinin. i'd never heard of it outside of phaedrus. ultimately, phaedrus' use of reinin dichotomies is meant to prove his own points, and not an example of why reinin itself is bad.
FDG is a far better example, having successfully confused the hell out of himself from a primarily reinin/smilexian basis.
dee doesn't even count.
Aristocratic/Democratic is very valid imo
process/result somewhat
4w3-5w6-8w7
i'd wholeheartedly disagree.
lol
aristocratic/democratic seems to be a trait that manifests very consistently with quadras.
4w3-5w6-8w7
But those select few, he emphasizes like no other mortal. I would say that his faulty conclusions from the Reinin dichotomies is a reason why the Reinin dichotomy in itself is bad.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
static/dynamic is not a reinin dichotomy; it is a functional dichotomy.
i don't especially care about the semantics. if it is a reinin dichotomy then its useless as reinin dichotomies go, as far as describing characteristics between types. between functions, it's very useful.http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p...ic_and_dynamic
Doesn't it have functional as well as reininy parts?
They do exist.
As far as their usefulness go, it depends on how much you like using them. They're far from being absolutely necessary, but they can be a nice addition if detailed explanations of people's behavior are needed.
I have already reaced the conclusion that you are too stupid to understand the points I make using those theories. I am far from being confused, in fact the more one is able to use smilexian socionics, the less confused issues become.FDG is a far better example, having successfully confused the hell out of himself from a primarily reinin/smilexian basis.
Anyway, I agree that some dichotomies are far from being useful/applicable. If you want to say that noone of them is useful, I'm fine, but that's exclusively your personal opinion.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
sure, but as far as i'm concerned saying this and actually believing it more than proves yourself to be in close company with the idiots that i routinely deride.
Subjectivist/objectivist is another name, given in some Russian articles (like the very first one we had here describing Reinin) for Merry/Serious, which is nothing more or less than the Fe-Ti/Fi-Te quadra divide. Which is of course valid, but it's not a "true" Reinin dichotomy.
But more to the point you've made, Phaedrus's problem is that he uses it by way of philosophers, which just muddles the issue (conveniently for him).
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
I think the Reinin dichotomies should be sentenced to death, so is that a thumbs up or a thumbs down?
Obviously you have never read Jung's Psychological Types then. Or you didn't understood the chapters on Te and Ti.
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.
Last edited by Phaedrus; 08-22-2008 at 11:57 AM.
Very productive indeed.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Some of them appear to be valid (static/dynamic, merry/serious, and maybe even the aristocratic/democratic dichotomy). Should learn more about all of them though before making any judgment on their usefulness in typing.
EII 4w5
so/sx (?)
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.
SUPER THUMBS UP!
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
As seems clear from what I've read of the original Reinin/Augusta papers, and the Lytov interview with Reinin, it went like this.
Reinin proposed the existence of the dichotomies based on the 4-dichotomy mathematical calculations. That is to say, if you have a system based on E/I, N/S, F/T, and P/J, you can propose those dichotomical combinations, as in:
NT + SF vs NF + ST
NJ + SP vs NP + SJ
ET + IF vs EF + IT
etc etc.
Then, having arrived at the dichotomies - which, so far, meant nothing, nothing at all, but letters - Reinin and Augusta went through them, trying to match them to what they knew of the types from personal observation and from functional analysys.
Then, they proposed that "NJ + SP" = strategic and "NP + SJ" = tactical, etc .
But, as Reinin said in the interview, in some cases they were more certain than others, and he fully expected that empirical observation would confirm some dichotomies and nullify others.
Which is why the idea that the dichotomies should be the main base of socionics, or even of equal weight as model A, has no base whatsoever - unless for those who choose to believe so.
Let's say we want to compare the Alpha and Gamma types in light of the Subjectivist/Objectivist and the Merry/Serious dichotomies. Then we find that, for typical representatives of each type, Subjectivist is most clearly seen in the INTj, Merry is most clearly seen in the ESFj, Objectivist is most clearly seen in the ENTj, and Serious is most clearly seen in the ISFj.
This is of course trivial, but it needs to be pointed out anyway since Expat has misunderstood the Subjectivist/Objectvist dichotomy.
We also find that Phaedrus is full of crap, but this is trivial of course, since most of us already knew this.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
Wow. The level of stupidity + ignorance in what you just quoted in your post has been taken to unexplored heights.
ETA: I am referring to what Logos quoted, not to what Logos himself said.
Last edited by Expat; 08-22-2008 at 04:55 PM. Reason: Need to point out the obvious
So Expat refuses to admit that he is wrong about the Subjectivist/Objectivist dichotomy, despite the indisputable fact that what he says here is clearly false. That is unacceptable. So I just have to state the truth once again:
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 Expat's exposition of the Fe-Ti/Fi-Te quadra divide, but in that case we must 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.
"2+2=4."
"You have such a narrow band logic. Obstinate for you, dude."
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who have respect for the truth and are willing to check the facts, and those who don't care about the truth and ignore the facts. Expat belongs to the first category, and his silence on this means that he now knows that he was wrong about the Subjectivist/Objectivist divide and admits his mistake.
I think his silence comes from the fact that he has you on ignore. I just that you should properly know the facts.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
If Expat doesn't explicitly state that he thinks that what I have said is the truth about the Subjectivist/Objectivist and the Merry/Serious dichotomy is false, then he admits that I am right about it and that he was wrong about it. And you (Logos) know that I am right about it, and you know (and you admit it) that what Expat has said about this (that Subjectivist/Objectivist is just another name for Merry/Serious) is false.
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.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
Yes, but they're rarely useful for typing and never more useful than things like quadra values, temperaments, and even clubs.
People usually only have a few "apparent" reinin dichotomies, and sometimes appearances can be deceiving (someone who should be a positivist looks like a negativist, or whatever).
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.
Anyway, for the sake of others.
From here: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ead.php?t=7311
GAIETY - SERIOUSNESS (subjectivism - objectivism)
Merry, they subjectivists (I and II kvadry):
1. Merry realize well the general emotional background, which associates contact with any people (for example, enthusiasm, merriment, stress, etc.). Merriment (as, probably, and generally any emotional experiences) in them isolated in the separate form of activity (they can, for example, to a question about that how they were occupied - answer: "we cheered themselves" - they receive emotional contact as the separate kind of occupations).
2. merry do not receive acquaintance as the special form of the activity (in contrast to the serious, in which acquaintance it is certain ritual). They realize well, why they become acquainted (purpose of acquaintance - interests, the matter, etc.). In contrast to the serious, they are not inclined to divide the "process of acquaintance" into the certain successive stages. They can immediately establish any distance in the contact and regulate it at its own discretion. For overcoming the boundaries between "their" and "strangers" is used an increase in the emotional incandescence (this it can be together experienced happiness or to mountain). Name with the acquaintance has marginal importance, pervostepenen interest in the man, the relations, etc. - therefore do not consider formal ideas as the necessary element of acquaintance.
3. subjectivist, in contrast to the objectivist, is not inclined to derive "objectively accurate" regularities (summarizing for this its and strange experience). It assumes that in other people there can be other criteria, their view on any situation; therefore is defined svoi/chuzhiye of action as accurate or incorrect, compulsorily comparing them with the "subjective" view - it evaluates at tying to the personal concept, "its system", the intentions. Subjectivists are inclined to propose (or to tie) to other people not "correct" method of operations, but integral concept in regard to this - i.e., they propose not simple "to make differently", but "to glance at the situation differently". They do not consider, in contrast to the objectivists that there are the situations, when there is only one "the objectively accurate" version of solution of problem - at any situation, in their opinion, it is possible to look differently. After seeing, which something is done "not so", they will ask, it is faster: "A that you make?" (instead of the objectivist "who zh so it makes?").
(cut for reasons of space)
--------
Serious, they objectivists (III and IV kvadry):
1. Serious badly realize general emotional background; do not receive the emotionally painted concepts (for example, "merriment") they apart and substitute by their interpretations, which do not have straight emotional okrasa (instead of the word "merriment" they speak "entertainment", "leisure", "pleasure", etc.). They do not receive emotional contact as the separate kind of occupations, and they are inclined to mix up it with other joint matters (they can be cheered on the work or be occupied by the serious matters, veselyas').
2. in serious acquaintance with the new person is the special "ritual", necessary for the rapprochement with it (if ritual it is not passed, then serious does not consider itself as "that introduced", for example: "us they did not represent"). In the situation of acquaintance it is serious simpler, if the degree of the proximity of contact is assigned from without - i.e., acquaintance substantially they will be facilitated with the presence of any mediator (man or situation- mediator) - this makes it possible "to jump" the first phases of acquaintance, to immediately begin closer contact. For overcoming the boundaries between "their" and "strangers" serious create (or they use already existing) special "rules" and "rituals" for the step by step rapprochement. Realize well entire process and the phases of acquaintance (as of the "stranger" of men it becomes "its"). For the rapprochement serious it is important to know name, any other information, which characterizes new person, therefore formal idea is the necessary stage of acquaintance.
3. in objectivist there is an idea about "objectively known" facts, regularities in the general experience, it considers that there are "accurate generally", the "always correct" of regularity. Assumes that in other people there can be its view, its position, but it does not consider that any action can be evaluated as vernoye/nevernoye only from a fixed point of view (it allows existence "objectively accurate" actions). Therefore, from the point of view of objectivist, actions can be different - "subjective", connected with the personal motives and the preferences, and "objective" (when there is only one "correct", most effective method anything to make). Objectivists define svoi/chuzhiye of action as accurate or incorrect, comparing them with its idea about how "it is objectively correct". When they consider that in the situation there is only one optimum version of solution of problem, are inclined to propose (or even to tie) precisely the method the activities (not its view as subjectivists), which is seemed them most expedient: "no, you so make - so it is correct". Speaking about the optimality, they have in the form an optimality generally - the "objective" optimality (they consider that know "correct", "optimum generally" the methods of operation). With the joint activity they propose "most effective" method; with the disagreement, first of all, not "are compared the concepts", but they explain, does know collocutor about that, "as correctly".
4. in contrast to the subjectivists, they are not disposed to the "collation of concepts". Objectivists assume that the kept balance terms, concepts have the only possible interpretation ("correct", "accurate") - often they do not think about the fact that another person can receive them otherwise, within the framework of another concept.
(CUT)
----------
Hypothesis
Dichotomy logic - ethics strengthens one of the components of this sign (ethics it strengthens the development of gaiety, logic - seriousness).
Examples
Merry (subjectivists):
"merriment - large quantity of emotions... The company of friends, we are exchanged news, it is possible to cut through, songs to popet' ". "entertainment - this is the involvement, when it is possible to actively pouchastvovat'. When you look or read - these are instruction, and merriment - this is active, and even excited state, which 4 never I confuse with leisure (slack state)... Perhaps, merriment for me - this is the excited contact, which (in contrast to the quarrel, the fight and so forth.) reaches pleasure ". "reading the books, opera - is not entertainment... Merriment - high vital tone ". "merriment - some liberation, when all seem by not too serious". "merriment - these are happiness, recklessness, everyone in this participates, collapse some framework". "if me they lead into the company and do not represent, then to me it does not comprise the labor to be introduced by the very". the "majorities of those, with whom" I am scutched ", I can not know on the name". "the order of the mastery of contact can be any, become acquainted is not compulsory". "for me in the company names are not important". "4 in the week only memorized its name, although they kissed already to the utmost extent" (about the acquaintance with the future husband). "when I see that someone something so does not make, it is necessary to ascertain that this my matter. If me this concerns, the first reaction - to step back and to give to that making "to nakhlebat'sya"... I have its criteria, as it is must. In other people there can be their criteria ". "first place axe, explain, why so you make". "I calculated, that expressed that the fact that it considered it necessary and that relating to this theme".
Serious (objectivists):
"to me it is difficult to demarcate work and merriment. Merriment... is complicated to determine ". "everything I approach seriously, even to leisure". "always in the serious it is possible to find something prikol'noye, and vice versa". "to learn is must gaily. Work without the entertaining element is impossible ". "that this merriment - is not understandable. What is leisure - is understandable what entertainment is - also ". "for me it is important so that they would present me, or, it is still better so that about me previously something they would describe in the company". "I enter with the man into the contact within the framework proposed to them, I do not go for them, if I do not know, it will be to it pleasantly". "I do not love to tie or when others tie: suddenly the aunt, whom 4 for the first time I see, begins to call "detkoy" or somehow still ". "name - this is important. If his person does not say, frequently this means that he wants to rather end contact ". "if it is done not since must? Oy! To me simpler to select and to make than to explain. In my opinion nail can be driven in only by one method ". "there are the things, with respect to which it is evident objective what so to make inexpediently and to eat an optimum method of operations. It irritates, if man systematically makes something not then ". "when I see that something is done ineffectively, in me" the guts into the knots are tied "". "heavily I survive, when something clearly contradicts the common sense, and I can to make 4 anything. If I can interfere into the situation - I interfere, regardless of the fact, it concerns me, or not ". "the methods, inherent in man within the framework of his experience - not the same, that objective things (evidently according to the result)".
So:
The Reinin dichotomy is:
I and II quadras (Alpha and Beta), so Fe/Ti = Merry=Subjectivist
III and IV quadras (Gamma and Delta), so Fi/Te = Serious=Objectivist
Which is painfully obvious.
Last edited by Expat; 08-23-2008 at 09:56 PM. Reason: Typo
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
