Duals and identicals are the best teachers. Duals in my experience are better of course.
Duals and identicals are the best teachers. Duals in my experience are better of course.
I don't relate to it either. (or maybe I'm just in denial :wink
I fit the ILE description better and the reinin dichotomies associated with ILE. Maybe I am an ILE.
Drew Barrymore is listed as both SEE and SEI.
I finally got around to reading over the book and noticed that much of the text is red or highlighted. Is there a rhyme or reason to it or just what the translator happened to think was pertinent?
LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP
Those famous lists are mixed up by accident if you can't tell already, probably due to translation error. Reinin's list is fine, but the second list is SEE instead of SEI, etc.
Yeah Reinin LIIs seem a lot more closed-off in this weird linear way with their thinking, finding conclusion after conclusion when Ne is really active. ILEs are more open and indecisive, naturally accepting Ne most of the time instead.
I’ve finally finished reading Reinin’s book and its raised a lot of questions, especially regarding the Reinin dichotomies. It seems the way in which Reinin describes several of the dichotomies is very different from how they are described in Wikisocion. So I’m confused. In particular, the reasonable/resolute dichotomy is described very differently between the two sources.
Here’s what Reinin says:
The reasonable – the resolute. The reasonable ones consider the potential opportunities, in their relationships they are giving, they want to please and be interesting (sexually also). The resolute are mostly focused on the immediate experience of a relationship, and the pleasure that he/she is getting. This distinction is true in the intimate sphere also. The two types may also be named the givers and the takers.
There’s no mention of any of this in the wikisocion descriptions. In wikisocion, the focus is on whether or not one’s natural state is more relaxed (reasonable/judicious) or mobilized (resolute/decisive)
The tactical/strategic dichotomy is another example of how the two sources define it very differently. According to Reinin:
The tacticians – the strategists. This attribute becomes evident in people's relationships. The tacticians are capable of providing immediate support, they can advise on tactics and give short-term financial support. They can give advice on practical behavior in specific situations. They never check up on you to see if you have used their advice. The strategists are inclined to give strategic advice; they offer their energy and time. They are not as flexible in the area of compromise. They can grasp a situation as a whole at the first glance.
Now compare that to Wikisocion
Tacticals
1.Focus on methods, and manipulate them, with goals unsettled.
2.Goals are defined by, and modified to fit methods.
3.Prefers to expand options. Doesn't like to have too few of them.
Strategicals
1.Focus on goals, and manipulate them, with methods unsettled.
2.Methods are defined by, and modified to fit goals.
3.Prefers to defend goals. Doesn't like to be forced to deviate from them.
Now look at rational-irrational. According to Reinin:
Irrationality - rationality. This pair is also one of Jung's basic pairs; it corresponds to Krechmer's cyclothymic - schizothymic pair. There are eight rational and eight irrational types in a socion. The rational types are characterized by a subtle change in sensitivity, whereas the irrational types – by fluctuations of mood. The rational types are more focused and stable. The irrational types are characterized by a roller coaster of emotions varying from elation to depression, abundance of energy to exhaustion. The extreme stage of the irrationality is known as the manic depressive syndrome. Here we do not touch upon any of the aspects of the 'big psychiatry', as we consider only people with basically wholesome mentality, who are integrated in the society: here we stay within the 'psychological norm'.
In Wikisocion, no mention is made at all about fluctuations of mood. In Reinin, it’s the only thing. In socionics.us there are a long list comparing traits of rationals and irrationals and mood fluctuation is just one small part of it.
See what I mean about the differences in dichotomy descriptions? Which approach is correct? How do they relate to each other? Did the Russian translation get so botched that the interpretations in Wikisocion and other English sources become very different from what Reinin intended?
LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP
Here are some differences I spotted.
Reinin describes compliant/stubborn (yielding/obstinate) like this:
The Compliant – the stubborn (the terms offered by A.Augustinavičiūtė). The compliant types are inclined to avoid conflicts, they are hardworking, and they strive for good relationships. The stubborn ones' have a motto “attack is the best defense.” they would not concede easily.
Here’s Wikisocion’s take on it:
Yielding types
1.Resources are 'sacred', but ideas are freely shared and manipulated.
2.Easily aware of the boundaries between their and others' interests.
3.Protect their resources to the point of conflict, and their reaction may be unduly strong.
4.“If I know I can't do something, I won't and will forget all about it.”
Obstinate types
1.Ideas are 'sacred', but resources are freely shared and manipulated.
2.Easily aware of the boundaries between their and others' resources.
3.Guard their interests from intrusions, and their reaction to such intrusions may be quite sharp.
4.“I won't abandon my interests just because my resources are inadequate, but simply work towards improving my resources until they ARE adequate.”
Item #2 in the yielding description I suppose could relate to Reinin’s idea that yielding types want to strive for good relationships. Item #3 in the obstinate description sorta relates to Reinin’s idea about obstinate types not wanting to concede easily. However, yielding types may not concede easily when their resources are threatened (#3). Reinin makes no mention of resource protecting vs. interest protecting.
Here’s Reinin’s description of the democrat/aristrocrat:
The Democrats – the aristocrats. The attribute manifests itself as a universal characteristic of fellowship. The democrats find it easy to establish horizontal relationships, get on friendly terms, become friends and partners. The aristocrats are more aware of the hierarchies; they keep people at a distance, more prone to establishing vertical relationships.
During the experiments these groups are easy to distinguish. The aristocrats try to distance themselves from others as much as possible, they never interrupt anybody; democrats speak all at once, frequently neglecting the common norms of politeness.
Here’s Wikisocion’s:
Aristocrats
1.Inclined to perceive and define themselves, and others, through groups they belong to; however, such groups are perceived and defined by the Aristocrats themselves, not necessarily accepting those groupings as defined by others or by social conventions.
2.Their initial attitude to another person is influenced by their attitude to the group they see the person as belonging to.
3.Tend to attribute common qualities to members of their circles of contacts, and define such circles by those same qualities.
4.Inclined to use expressions that generalize group features.
Example: feeling energized by identification with a group, as in a team within a company, sports team, and the like; and seeing others foremost through the prism of the other teams they belong to.
Democrats
1.Perceive and define themselves, and others, primarily through individual/personal qualities: interesting, pleasant, unpleasant, good-looking, etc, not in connection to any group they may belong to.
2.Form their relationships/attitudes toward other persons based on the latter's own individual characteristics, not with base on their relationships to groups of any kind, nor on their relationships to representatives of such groups.
3.Not inclined to perceive their acquaintances as representatives of a certain "circle of contacts" that supposedly possesses qualities inherent to people of that circle.
4.Not inclined to use expressions that generalize group features.
Example: an individual building up his circle of personal connections, within an organization, that totally bypassses or ignores the organization's formal structure, but not with that circle being perceived as any kind of group or unit by any of the persons involved.
Reinin doesn’t mention about individual vs. group orientation like Wikisocion. Again I’m not entirely clear how these two different interpretations relate to one other. Why would identifying yourself through groups (Wikisocion) imply distancing yourself from others as much as possible (Reinin)? Maybe if you belong to different groups but what if you’re in the same group? Why would democrats interrupt each other more? I don’t quite get it.
One more thing to mention. Reinin’s extraverted intuition description seems very different from Wikisocion or socionics.us
Here’s Reinin’s description:
-Objective intuition.The order of events from the beginning to the end, i.e. the sets of events known beforehand, the schedule. Potential opportunities. Behavior program, the way of life, the rhythm of life. Scenario of any action, acting in accordance to predetermined scenario.
Positive objective intuition (+). Integrity of the environment: everything is known from beginning to end; the world as if rolls on straight tracks; there is a schedule; the world is predictable, people are predictable, too.
Inverse objective intuition (-). Infringement of the integrity of environment: unexpectedness, breach of schedule; the result of events is unpredictable, or an unexpected event.
Compare that with Wikisocion:
is generally associated with the ability to recognize possibilities, create new opportunities and new beginnings, recognize talent and natural propensities in others, reconcile differing perspectives and viewpoints, rapidly generate ideas, and be led by one's intellectual curiosity and stimulate curiosity in others.
And with Socionics.us
potentiality of objects: inherent possibilities, purpose, abilities, talents, content, values (socionics.us)
Reinin talks about extraverted intuition and predictability and schedules. I’ve never seen an Ne base type to be very concerned with predictability or schedules.
LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP
Wikisocion descriptions>Reinin descriptions. Anytime.
Last edited by Trevor; 11-07-2010 at 01:01 AM.
JohnDo, I don't know if this helps.
From experience, I'd rather learn from an identical when learning a particular job or task. For general life, well everything else, the dual is the best teacher.
Perhaps as an LII you'd want to learn the systems of a job in a way which matches your ego block filtering, but for Fe and Si matters, that's when the dual is best teacher.
I agree it's somewhat contradictory in how its wrote, as they are both the best teachers, just at different things.
Well, Wikisocion is just a wiki on a not-so-well-defined subject, so it shouldn't be held as being the ultimately credible source.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
First of all: nice book and thank you Jxrtes
My opinion:
1) First part: interesting type profiles. I found the Ne-as-leading-function description rather accurate: "the external situation must make sense". Basically, Se focus on the self, Ne on the whole. That's why Ne types see Se as selfish and narrow minded. I'll add more about this later.
2) The math chapter: in short, with N attributes N+1 types can be defined, with 2^(whatever) different traits. Lots of independent researchers have reached the same conclusion, and it seems the universe works this way etc etc
3) Types in different situations: don't you think all of them sound the same? For me, it's like reading the horoscope report
ILE "Searcher"
Socionics: ENTp
DCNH: Dominant --> perhaps Normalizing
Enneagram: 7w6 "Enthusiast"
MBTI: ENTJ "Field Marshall" or ENTP "Inventor"
Astrological sign: Aquarius
To learn, read. To know, write. To master, teach.
(i)NTFS
An ILI at rest tends to remain at rest
and an ILI in motion is probably not an ILI
♫ 31.9FM KICE Radio ♫ *56K Warning*
My work on Inert/Contact subtypes
Socionics Visual Identification(V.I.) Database
Socionics Tests Database
Comprehensive List of Socionics Sites
Fidei Defensor
This looks awesome; thanks for sharing it. Always a treat to find comprehensive stuff on socionics in coherent English.
I didn't find the delta type descriptions all that good.
Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx
I don't have microsoft word. Is there a way to open this without giving mr. william gates money?
Apparently I have something called Microsoft Works.
OpenOffice.org is a good free alternative.
Thank you! Microsoft Words doesn't.
This book came from me, btw, not jerkzeez.
ILE "Searcher"
Socionics: ENTp
DCNH: Dominant --> perhaps Normalizing
Enneagram: 7w6 "Enthusiast"
MBTI: ENTJ "Field Marshall" or ENTP "Inventor"
Astrological sign: Aquarius
To learn, read. To know, write. To master, teach.
Ha, nice.
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...7&d=1317745744
I think that would be it.
Can someone explain to me why the text looks like a rainbow?
I feel tempted to just colour everything in black for more unity.
By the way, it is "C. G. Jung", not "K. G. Jung".
People like to shit on Reinin's dichotomies but I think he has one of the best ILI descriptions I've read and possibly the most succinct, correct definition of Ni.
His typings could use some work though.
list of types of socionists: http://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.p...ory:Socionists
his profile page in wiki: http://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.p...inin,_Grigoriy
That line: "Reinin self-types as ILE, however, several other socionists agree on ILI."
he does not sound like LII. ILI could make some sense based highly subjective descriptions (dichotomies and so on).
There is an interview of him:
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