discussion on smilexian socionics

[JohnDo]

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...s-101-2-a.html

Interesting old thread. I'll have to work through it...

And I think I know the major flaw of Smilexian socionics now:
Everything he writes strikes me as ENTp. to the core...
His self-typings: ESFj -> ENFj -> ENTj -> ESTj. None of those types would ever write stuff like that. So the reason for his idea of changing types is that he simply is not judging but perceiving. That's why he tried to see himself as ESFj (didn't work), then ENFj (didn't work, either), afterwards ENTj and ESTj in the end.

Reinin dichotomies are sheer . People on this forum who are very interested in them:
Labcoat - INTj
Crispy - INTj
Brilliand - INTj
hkkmr - ENTp
Pied Piper - ENTp
me - INTj
People who aren't Alpha NTs don't seem to be interested...

edit: Expat and FDG - ENTj

[FDG]

Interesting old thread. I'll have to work through it...

And I think I know the major flaw of Smilexian socionics now:
Everything he writes strikes me as ENTp. to the core...
His self-typings: ESFj -> ENTj -> ESTj. None of those typs would ever write stuff like that...

Such a vapid response among a thread of reasonable material.

[krieger]

And I think I know the major flaw of Smilexian socionics now:
Everything he writes strikes me as ENTp. to the core...
His self-typings: ESFj -> ENFj -> ENTj -> ESTj. None of those types would ever write stuff like that. So the reason for his idea of changing types is that he simply is not judging but perceiving. That's why he tried to see himself as ESFj (didn't work), then ENFj (didn't work, either), afterwards ENTj and ESTj in the end.

Patently ridiculous. There is something wrong with your brain.

Reinin dichotomies are sheer . People on this forum who are very interested in them:

My interest in them is very shallow, and none of the Ti types I know had quite as much of an obsession with them as smilingeyes, who, for all intents and purposes, is an obvious and unproblematic ExTj.

Reinin dichotomies are face value distinctions without semantic content. They're extremely mentally unintensive when used in isolation. Ti deals more with actual structures that require inferrence steps to be arrived at. Just calling something by a name and then identifying it by it's surface characteristics is textbook Te.

[Minde]

I'm not and I'm interested in it...

[Words]

Eh, I don't feel I should be contributing to this conversation as it's perhaps out my depth, I know very little about Reinin and some other matters.

However, I think that this is interesting, on the subject of Reinin dichotomies being Ti or Te, and whether it's something only Ti types are interesting in,

Here's Ganins take on them, a leading Ti type The whole lot of useless nothing

Where he explores the 'system' more, creating what strikes me as a Ti 'system' for Reinin dichotomies, the theory, building blocks of it etc... eventually producing 667 dichotomies.

Smilingeyes on the other hand, simply uses them, I would say the Te is therefore more pronounced than the Ti.

[The Greeter]

I'm not and I'm interested in it...

Agreed.

I feel that the whole purpose of Smilexian Socionics is not to formalize the system or even to make it necessarily cohesive. Rather, his intention was to make use of the available systems and bring it together in such a way as to quickly type someone. There is definitely a practical intention out of all of this...dare I even say a Te one? Well, I believe so.

[Beautiful sky]

Agreed.

I feel that the whole purpose of Smilexian Socionics is not to formalize the system or even to make it necessarily cohesive. Rather, his intention was to make use of the available systems and bring it together in such a way as to quickly type someone. There is definitely a practical intention out of all of this...dare I even say a Te one? Well, I believe so.

And I agree as well; I met a really nice ESTj, who is currently in a relationship, but he offered to be the photographer of my theoretical project; he doesn't care much about me trying to make a system of something, nor does this person care much about my ideas and theories, albeit finds them very interesting; his aim and goal is to be useful, to utalize his skills as a photographer and work within my system (the one I have availed for him to do what he does best, to work). I think with his help I can focus on my project being objective, taking me out of triviality of the project, which is currently in my head, mostly, and providing him with satisfying practical pursuit of the actual objective effort...WORK. *He won't be getting paid*

This is something that people here don't seem to understand about Te types, they want to take theory and turn it into objective, useful tool, guide, kit, call it whatever; anything that might lend itself to use in the physical sense, not in the dream or theory sense.

[JohnDo]

Patently ridiculous. There is something wrong with your brain.

Sure. That's why I'm into socionics...

Reinin dichotomies are face value distinctions without semantic content. They're extremely mentally unintensive when used in isolation.

I disagree. All of them are very useful to explain certain characteristics. Some of them are even very useful for typing.

Ti deals more with actual structures that require inferrence steps to be arrived at. Just calling something by a name and then identifying it by it's surface characteristics is textbook Te.

- Reinin, who suggested them, is Ti ego.
- Augusta, who explored their content, was Ti ego.
- Gulenko, who works a lot with them, is Ti ego.

[krieger]

- Reinin, who suggested them, is Ti ego.

He self types as INTp. The claim you can type him better from your position than he can from his is impossible to take seriously.

- Augusta, who explored their content, was Ti ego.

She has explicitly said they are bogus, a "false hypothesis".

- Gulenko, who works a lot with them, is Ti ego.

They are of no more than marginal importance to his work.

I disagree. All of them are very useful to explain certain characteristics. Some of them are even very useful for typing.

This chimes in with what I said. These dichotomies are very practical typing tools. This is what makes them "useful". Practicality and usefulness is what Te is all about.

[Trevor]

He self types as INTp.

I've heard he selftypes ENTp. Source?

[Jarno]

He self types as INTp. The claim you can type him better from your position than he can from his is impossible to take seriously.

I heared the same, but when I confronted Olga and Expat (who met him IRL) with it, they said 1) no, he did not selftype as ILI
2) he looks like a stereotypical ILE.

[Marie84]

This chimes in with what I said. These dichotomies are very practical typing tools. This is what makes them "useful". Practicality and usefulness is what Te is all about.

There really isn't anything Te about reinventing a complex classification system formed from your own logical assertions that can't be measured against tangible material...

Te absorbs information, storing it, it doesn't take that data and structure it to be internally consistent, that's Ti. Both can be used to accomplish something practical and useful, than again practically can be subjective

[krieger]

Smilingeyes started out just using the reinin dichotomies by applying a very straightforward, practical, face-value interpretation of them and typing simply by matching the existing descriptions with what he observed. It was only when that approach led to imperfections that he started expanding his theories with regard to them. No one claims Te types never use Ti to complement their base function.

That initial practical approach really has very little to do with Ti. It doesn't even involve much thinking. More like deciding for it's own sake.

[Marie84]

There's nothing complex about reinin dichotomies. Solving a 2nd order system of pdes is complex. Reinin dichotomies are simple descriptions, their only complex facet is observational (i.e. isolating traits which pertain to a single dichotomy, eliminating any other influence).

This isn't overtly complex? http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ted-edits.html

Smilingeyes started out just using the reinin dichotomies by applying a very straightforward, practical, face-value interpretation of them and typing simply by matching the existing descriptions with what he observed. It was only when that approach led to imperfections that he started expanding his theories with regard to them.
No one claims Te types never use Ti to complement their base function.

You're still describing Ti, Ti with no Ne to be specific. That entire process of removing structural ambiguity to create a more logically consistent one has nothing to do with how Te works, at least I have never read anything that suggests so

That initial practical approach really has very little to do with Ti. It doesn't even involve much thinking. More like deciding for it's own sake.

This is where I must strongly agree to disagree, because I don't see anything practical in taking a bunch of theoretical information from a system and than revamping it into yet another theoretical system that can only be measured for accuracy by your own subjectivity
Well actually I think I'm being biased, since Ti can use that type of mental organization for productive purposes

[Beautiful sky]

Are there any other parts to this? I feel like I'm missing the beginning?

[Creepy-]

Reinin dichotomies are sheer . People on this forum who are very interested in them:
Labcoat - INTj
Crispy - INTj
Brilliand - INTj
hkkmr - ENTp
Pied Piper - ENTp
me - INTj

I don't have an opinion on whether the Reinin is Ti or not, but to correct a misunderstanding of yours. I am not interested in "The Reinin Dichotomies", but there are some of them that make sense to me, while others don't. You make this mistake (from my POV) of taking them all for granted as a whole - and so do some other people in your list who can't conceive the possibility that some can be real and others false, as long as they're determined by the same author through the same reasoning (and BTW, you forgot Trevor). The fact is that these dichotomies were just predicted by Reinin by combining the four "basic" ones, they're formal, conventional, arithmetic. Makes sense that many Logical Rationals tend to relate to them instantly, since RD make "part of Socionics", they often aim to tell whether they're in or out.
---

Comparing to those who just adopt them (instead of concluding them), I:

- dismiss quite a lot of them, the ones that don't make sense with the Model and/or real-life observations; these don't exist to me as of today: Yielding/Obstinate, Tactical/Strategic (*), Constructivist/Emotivist, Carefree/Farsighted, Positivist/Negativist, Process/Result, Asking/Declaring. So 7 out of 15, almost 50%.

- (*) think that Tactical/Strategic has a basis IRL, but it corresponds to External/Internal set of the Creative function of types; therefore SLI and SLE would be what Reinin calls "Tactical" (to me: Tp and Sj) while IEE and IEI are what he calls "Strategic" (to me: Fp and Nj). So mine does not make part of the Reinin convention, though my observations partially match the ones of the St. Petersburg confirmation squad. I don't have a strong opinion and clear descriptions of these traits, though.

- consider some of them to be the same dichotomy - or a combination of others, so they're not all on the same level. For example T/F and S/N are the same dichotomy (External/Internal) that, although it's fundamental to the Information Aspects, it's ignored by the RD because RD uses the old Jungian dichotomies as a fundamental given. Another example is Merry/Serious and Judicious/Decisive - they're a combination of this missing dichotomy with j/p.

- acknowledge the existence of other dichotomies with the same importance as the ones that make sense from Reinin (eg that one that I was calling in 2008 as Suggestible (Ti, Fe, Ni, Se)/Non-Suggestible(Te, Fi, Ne, Si) - or something)

- have my independent view on the traits of these dichotomies, both by using information and types, my descriptions are based on analyzing the real traits of these types (of people and information) so they naturally gravitate around the descriptions of Reinin; however, my descriptions often radically differ from the ones made by others, whose ones are based on Reinin's frugal and cryptic descriptions, often simply the keywords alone, instead of observations, making them purely formal and usually inaccurate, depending on what keywords and ideas from Reinin they emphasized. For example, I view Serious and Decisive as very similar and I often extracted what they have in common, while no one I know developing over Reinin ever accomplished that.

related:

Take for example your understanding in Aristocratic/Democratic - an understanding based on the general meaning of these notions (words, not observations):

Democratic / Aristocratic: (replaced with individualist / collectivist)
...
Democratic / Aristocratic -> Individualist / Collectivist
...

They consider that everyone has got talents and they try at least not to interfere.

Democratic. Aristocratic types may believe other people don't have talents...
...

ENFjs also have tendency to behave aristocratically. They can give the impression that they are from noble families.

Aristocratic.
...
democratic/aristocratic: Groups. Do you identify with your nation, you race, your sports club or not?
...
intuitive*ethical*aristocratic = Humanitarians

So you think this dichotomy is necessarily society-related, just because that's where these terms apply in the general sense. Then you try to make it somehow match the type and Quadra descriptions, overlooking anything that could be inconsistent, being confident that they will "fit together somehow in the end". Your last example is even a contradiction in itself - those racist aristocrats are humanist, hmm....

I view it differently and while the trait of having an aristocratic air can be considered a subset of the real traits, it can have nothing in common with most of these fantasies based on Reinin's terms alone (eg Individualist/Collectivist). To me, "aristocratic" is an irrational (in the general sense), type-related tendency to possess an awareness of "belonging". Examples: the feeling that a woman should be more justified and motivated to talk about estrogen and contraception, a male about beer, a native English speaker about English, someone on-duty about the duty, and so on.
This "aristocracy" is the schism between the External (S,T) and Internal (N,F) valued Information Elements, it can be considered socially true for Beta, because of Se/Ni (symbolic image, impression), but Delta is out of the question - in fact most egalitarian people are Delta while the most elitist ones are Beta. How can this be correlated to the whole story of "aristocracy"?

I think you're onto something, but that is an inclination of Tj's, not Ti's - Logical Rationals, the types who (think they) live in a "perfectly logical" world, where everything is already explained or can be explained at will, types to which a theory or concept can be either valid or invalid - in a nutshell, people incapable or barely capable to comprehend the notion of "partially correct". You may safely use this as a definition for "Logical Rational".

off-topic:

No surprise that most Socionics authors are extremely reserved into using "open-minded" and Rational/Judging in the same sentence. Besides, if you comprehended how insane I view ideas like "brainstorming" (or any kind of controlled creativity and controlled understanding, technically defecating "ideas" and "solutions" on-demand), you could realize that if this view was a government policy, virtually all LIEs and LSE would be socially marginalized or even confined to asylums .

I'm not like this, I explained my view above all the time when I used to post, and I'm telling you, JohnDo that you're currently incapable to understand it, to understand me and therefore understand certain types (in this case Tp). I do think that your dogmatic view is somewhat type-related but I still think that you can get over it if you really intend to advance, your current Socionics understanding is an almost exclusively semantical set of indiscriminate compilation of different writings of different authors (including subjective connotations, eg your bogus understanding of "serious"), which you struggle to forcibly make fit together, speculating and ignoring the inconsistencies. Smilingeyes has done the same mistake, adding some quick and dirty "solutions" to cover up the things he could not explain (eg. inventing changing types).

Concluding, there's little to no connection in understanding, usage and selection of these dichotomies between me and most other people in that list, unless some of them changed their view that I'm aware of. Also, I'm not using the "Reinin Dichotomies", but some of the dichotomies I acknowledge coincide with some of Reinin's, if you brazenly choose to ignore this fundamental aspect and label me as a "Reinin user" it's only your problem and your mistake.
(Not trying to suggest that I discovered all these dichotomies I use by myself, from scratch. I did investigate Reinin too, and often started off from it - in fact this is how I managed to have an opinion on which of these dichotomies I accept and which I reject.)

--
Pied Piper

[krieger]

For those interested, Trevor and I recently found a way of framing the claims of Reinin that renders the old terms obsolete. The large cycle Reinin dichotomies denote value-focus clubs and stength-focus quadras:

Stength-focus on a trait means that when the Strong functions of a type (ego functions and ego functions of the Contrary type) are examined, functions of the trait in question are always Focal (aka Limiting).
Value-focus means the same thing for the Valued functions of a type (ego functions and ego functions of the Dual).

Focal (aka Limiting) means Accepting/Dynamic or Creating/Static
Diffuse (aka Empowering) means Accepting/Static or Creating/Dynamic

Emotivism: strength-focus Serious
Constructivism: strength-focus Merry
Strategical: strength-focus Reasonable
Tactical: strength-focus Resolute

Carefree: value-focus Sensing
Calculated: value-focus Intuitive
Obstinate: value-focus Ethical (interest protecting)
Comliant: value-focus Logical (method protecting)

Type		Strength Focus	Value Focus
INTj		Delta (Ne,Te)	NF (Ne,Fe)
ESFj		Beta (Se,Fe)	NF (Ne,Fe)
ENTp		Beta (Ni,Ti)	ST (Si,Ti)
ISFp		Delta (Si,Fi)	ST (Si,Ti)
ISTj		Gamma (Se,Te)	SF (Se,Fe)
ENFj		Alpha (Ne,Fe)	SF (Se,Fe)
ESTp		Alpha (Si,Ti)	NT (Ni,Ti)
INFp		Gamma (Ni,Fi)	NT (Ni,Ti)
ISFj		Beta (Se,Fe)	ST (Se,Te)
ENTj		Delta (Ne,Te)	ST (Se,Te)
ESFp		Delta (Si,Fi)	NF (Ni,Fi)
INTp		Beta (Ni,Ti)	NF (Ni,Fi)
INFj		Alpha (Ne,Fe)	NT (Ne,Te)
ESTj		Gamma (Se,Te)	NT (Ne,Te)
ENFp		Gamma (Ni,Fi)	SF (Si,Fi)
ISTp		Alpha (Si,Ti)	SF (Si,Fi)

Also worth noting:
Rationals have Focal Object functions
Irrationals have Focal Field functions

This gets at the real substance of the large-cycle Reinin dichotomies and explains why they are relevant and how they connect to the rest of the model instead of being a bunch of disjoint names without a context. Of course you need an understanding of Focal/Diffuse to understand this, so if you don't have one you have some catching up to do.

If you don't like the emphasis on Focal, you can get the Diffuse traits by inverting the ones displayed here.

[Creepy-]

Focal (aka Limiting) means Accepting/Dynamic or Creating/Static
Diffuse (aka Empowering) means Accepting/Static or Creating/Dynamic

In case that your "Creating" is the same thing with "Producing", I think there's something wrong in that (intended to use another dichotomy?). Each Dynamic and Static are to be found as both Accepting and Producing, as long as one block can have only one Dynamicality.

[And as far as I can tell, the positioning of the Dynamic (and therefore Static) functions won't affect the type as a separate dichotomy, apart for the S/D partition of the Ego:
- each block is either fully Dynamic or fully Static, Accepting/Producing make no difference;
- each D/S can be found in both Valued and Subdued blocks;
- each D/S can be found in both Strong and Weak blocks.]

Am I missing something?

--
PP

[krieger]

I think your confusion consists in how you missed somewhere that Focal/Diffuse is a trait of functions, not types or blocks. Other than that, your post doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me and maybe you should explain your difficulties again.

[Creepy-]

I think your confusion consists in how you missed somewhere that Focal/Diffuse is a trait of functions, not types or blocks. Other than that, your post doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me and maybe you should explain your difficulties again.

There's no confusion, you used Dynamic/Static in your post.

I was expecting that you won't be able to justify the existence of Focal/Diffuse through Dynamic/Static. If you remember our first clash on the forum - "which is the most fundamental dichotomy" - it was based on the same thing: while I acknowledge that Dynamic/Static as a fundamental one (it's a damn information aspect), you said that it's a mere combination of j/p and E/I. This mistake of yours drives you into such dead-ends, it appears to me that no matter how much you try (like a rat in a glass jar, someone would say) you won't be able to change this, unless you reject the fact that Reinin's Dynamic/Static is the same with Dynamic/Static information aspect of the functions/IEs (aka "denying the reality").

I previously demonstrated to you that the usage of the four dichotomies as a base by Reinin made room for error, for redundant combinations and inexistent dichotomies, but you failed to understand, trying to justify all Reinin through all sort of complicated formulas, operations and definitions, so check mate! I'm glad you confirm my other post that you live in a reality built on paper. You continue to be wrong and build your whole understanding on this clay foundation - the only way out requiring you to admit that I am right.

Like Trevor would answer labcoat: "neat!"

--
PP