Using Reinin Dichotomies Effectively

[717495]

Forget the tally chart for now. What you want to do is read up on the dichotomies, and look for some you are very sure about. Don't just assume you're sure about all of them, but chose the few that really stick out.

Two that really stick out for me (upon reading the descriptions at wikisocion) are "carefree" and "result." So I know, there is a pretty good chance versus all the other possibilities, that I am a carefree and a result type.

There are only 3 carefree and result types. SLI, IEE, and ESI. Now what you have here is a decent basis for analysis. I can look more in depth at these 3 types. I can also assume that all of the other dichotomies may or may not work, but I know that I have covered the main two that I am sure about, so there should be much less of a problem along the way. This is called prioritizing.

So I look through the other dichotomies, and a lot of them don't stick out too strongly. I couldn't say with absolute certainty I'm more of this than that. However I do think of myself as more of a logical type, at the same time I can see myself valuing Si, and PoLR Fe is a theme I can relate to, versus something like PoLR Ne. So I can probably rule out ESI with more confidence.

Now we do something more like the tally chart. There are only two types left, (and let's say most of the tallies are under SLI, if I only have the time to speculate.) So there you have a more than decent proposal using Reinin Dichotomies (if say you want to use the system in the first place.) This is a better method than the tally system in my opinion, because you're not forced to decide. You can weigh your priorities.

One last thing I can do is go back and read all the reinin dichotomies for SLI and see how many disagreements I come to. Because I prioritized my answers, this reading should have the least amount of disagreements than if I chose a different, more symmetrically assuming approach, which does not always work. It turns out that I did not come to any stark disagreements upon reading, but I, personally, am still speculating. However if I were to force myself to chose for every dichotomy ahead of time, there is a good chance that the tallies would not have come up with SLI. But instead, SLI might be somewhere in the middle rank, as well as IEE. Two dichotomies I am quite sure about would only get 13% of the say.

Anyway, I think this method is fairly obvious to a lot of people. There are a certain few who could be a bit more lenient and weigh their options more personally. Lastly, I'm not necessarily saying Reinin dichotomies will effectively give you your type result, but a lot of people seem to trust them, and I might come to see that they're much more useful than they currently seem. It is, after all, just another theory, and another assumption to how Socionics is organized, and I can't effectively read Reinin's mind to understand what he thoroughly intended. I can only assume.

[717495]

So the basic assumption with this method is that you don't have enough information. A problem one might face in force deciding is seeing another person as a definite candidate for one end of a dichotomy, say "emotivist," and by contrast one might see themselves as "constructivist" simply because they're not as emotivist as that person. Well this is what you don't want to take a chance on. You would much rather leave that question blank until you have some selected down choices. What you do have, however, is a reason to type that other person. He/she is definitely an emotivist, you have just eliminated half of the possibilities.

[Azeroffs]

LIE is carefree/result too =]

[717495]

Oh, you're right. Dichotomy wise, SLI is still a better fit. The main idea is still there, I think.

[greed]

I'll give this one a go.. pretty interesting method you've got here.

We might not be considering sensing-intuition to be a Reinin dichotomy here, but there's no way that I'm not intuitive. It's my strongest dichotomy of the 15, bar none. It just makes sense to start with it.

According to the entry on wikisocion, I'm definitely result-oriented, especially regarding multitasking and reading random passages and paragraphs. I thought that'd be an ILE trait, too. And I thought that result-oriented types would be the sequence-following ones. I guess I was wrong.

That leaves: LII, IEI, LIE, IEE.

I see myself as more of an extrovert, so, LIE and IEE. And between the two of those, I see myself as Si-valuing more than Se-valuing. So, probably IEE.

As far as IEE's other dichotomies, I see myself as "middle-of-the-road" ethical/logical and probably slightly more irrational than rational--at least, neither dichotomy "stands out" to me. None of the other dichotomies strike me as terribly right or wrong.


Other than the oddball peculiarities I noted about the process/result dichotomy, I could see a lot of value in your method. But then, those peculiarities are just too much to ignore, too.. either I'm not understanding process/result, or the dichotomy itself is just jacked up

[krieger]

ISTp prioritization skills aren't that hot. They tend to get mesmerized by gadgets and let bussiness oppurtunities decide what their goals are. They rarely buy anything with an idea of what to use it for and what long term goal to acheive with it. If the deal is "good" they will buy the thing regardless of wether they need it. To me, their sense of priority looks almost random.

ENTjs are similar in this regard. They try to far to large an extent to find something positive in everything they encounter. In a sense they are bad at rejecting things, too eager to give things the benefit of the doubt. The result is that they end up encumbered with all kinds of tools, jobs, responsibilities and knowledge that don't form a rational whole and leave them with very little directed control of their own lives.

ISTjs are an example of the opposite. Everything they do is goal directed. Everything that suits the goal is accepted, everything else rejected. Their problem is generally that they don't review and criticize their own goals enough to the point it becomes an arbitrary obsession.

[Nexus]

ISTp prioritization skills aren't that hot. They tend to get mesmerized by gadgets and let bussiness oppurtunities decide what their goals are. They rarely buy anything with an idea of what to use it for and what long term goal to acheive with it. If the deal is "good" they will buy the thing regardless of wether they need it. To me, their sense of priority looks almost random.

ENTjs are similar in this regard. They try to far to large an extent to find something positive in everything they encounter. In a sense they are bad at rejecting things, too eager to give things the benefit of the doubt. The result is that they end up encumbered with all kinds of tools, jobs, responsibilities and knowledge that don't form a rational whole and leave them with very little directed control of their own lives.

ISTjs are an example of the opposite. Everything they do is goal directed. Everything that suits the goal is accepted, everything else rejected. Their problem is generally that they don't review and criticize their own goals enough to the point it becomes an arbitrary obsession.

LSI is methodical, LIE and SLI are goal-oriented; what you described for SLI sounds more like and id, which is what I have (especially the lack of perceptual preference); the lack of self-criticism and judgement you described fos LSI sounds much more like SLI to me

[Galen]

The ones that stick out for me particularly are constructivism and yielding, slight emphases on far-sighted and strategic. I'm definitely not ESTp, so that would make me INFj?

[717495]

Probably.

[Azeroffs]

The ones that stick out for me particularly are constructivism and yielding, slight emphases on far-sighted and strategic. I'm definitely not ESTp, so that would make me INFj?

You're EII, accept it!

Seriously though, it's odd that you picked 4 dichotomies that point to EII and away from IEE if you are in fact IEE.

[Galen]

I have a feeling you are an ESTJ...

in other words you have no idea how to type properly

also please do not capitalize your j's and p's

[717495]

Isn't ie. "ENTp" or "ISFj" socionics.com names? Did this naming system exist before that website? I would have thought it would always have been ILE and ESI, esp. before they MBTItized it.

[Galen]

I don't have any pictures of you, so I keep getting feelings of ISTp or ESTj because of strong

Well I mean it's fairly apparent to me that polikujm is Fe/Ti valuing.

[717495]

I think the idea of Fe is kind of distorted in this community (or shall I say: not thought through enough?). I have a feeling that the reasons for thinking of me as Fe valuing aren't the right reasons. Again, I naturally hmm.

I don't have any pictures of him either.

I have pictures in this thread.

[717495]

Now that I think about it, I believe that what has been mistaken for high levels of Fe by some newfolk here, is quite misleading, in that I actually believe what you're seeing is rather a lack of Fi. Because Fe is something much different (if you are Fi ignoring, you will come across in some regards how ILIs with weak Fi can.) But the ILIs Fi truly does not go ignored: as it is a primary state they are in, and a reaction toward emotional ideas, which takes a similar form to Fe-ignoring. The idea that ILIs are similar to EIEs in an emotional regard is certainly untruthful, but they both nevertheless have their lack of Fi. However, there is also a stark comparison, I think between ILIs and Fi dominants of the forum. An air of calmness and respect, although might be what ILIs tend toward, is certainly more perfected and valued in a higher regard by the Fi dominant types, being drawn into having more consistent standards, like always focusing on conduct and wanting to make little ethical mistakes. Where as Fe I believe to be another animal, namely one that values perceiving of emotions, expressions, participation in the underlying mood (and is not required of silliness or misconduct.) The line of Fe/Fi is much more blurred in the NT spectrum (same with levels of Se/Si), so one should depend on more ego factors I would think, (and it is best not to treat Fe and Fi as opposites, because they represent two different ethical ideas, and are basically on separate spectrums). Simply put, ie. Alphas and Gammas are not opposites of each other; they are only the most different to each other, as are Beta and Delta. To conclude, I believe a decent comparison to ILIs Fi levels would be that of ILEs Fi levels. In this we can see that ILEs generally fall short of most things related to Fi, and turned the other way, ILIs generally fall short of most things related to Fe. This is usually obvious, on a place like this forum, only if you are really searching for it, because these levels are low to begin with. To say ILEs are total Fe animals, you clearly have some misunderstanding of Fe, and I naturally have skepticism when someone says they believe they know someones HA, when it is clearly not presented in the first place. Clubs like NT, NF, ST, SF will always have some uncertainty as to which type exists within the club, because they all have the same strengths and weaknesses.

[FDG]

also please do not capitalize your j's and p's

lol what's the problem with that? Let's not be silly.

[717495]

I think capitalizing all letters is fine. This is a Socionics forum.

Maritsa, did I mention that I get ISTP for almost all to all reinin dichotomies? (not that its necessarily a good system to use.)

[Jarno]

lol what's the problem with that? Let's not be silly.

thank god I'm not the only one who thinks that.

[JohnDo]

Forget the tally chart for now. What you want to do is read up on the dichotomies, and look for some you are very sure about. Don't just assume you're sure about all of them, but chose the few that really stick out.

Two that really stick out for me (upon reading the descriptions at wikisocion) are "carefree" and "result." So I know, there is a pretty good chance versus all the other possibilities, that I am a carefree and a result type.

Now your self-typing is ILI. Farsighted and Process. Are you still convinced of your method? Are you still "using Reinin dichotomies effectively"?