I haven't seen several of the Reinin dichotomies actually work in action. Specifically, I can't really make sense of Carefree/Farsighted, Tactical/Strategic, Yielding/Obstinate, Constructivist/Emotivist, or Asking/Declaring.
I haven't seen several of the Reinin dichotomies actually work in action. Specifically, I can't really make sense of Carefree/Farsighted, Tactical/Strategic, Yielding/Obstinate, Constructivist/Emotivist, or Asking/Declaring.
A lot of people have apparently used them to type people. But the official descriptions are based on observations on a very small number of people, and the names may be somewhat misleading. In my opinion, the biggest problem from what I've observed is that people who use them as a primary typing method tend to ignore more obvious clues about a person's type. So you get these weird typing based on some obscure fact about a person that may or may not have to do with a Reinin dichotomy, and all the obvious information is left out.
there isn't really anything "mathematical" about Reinin except in that you can use convoluted strings of symbols to express what types the names denote, just like you can use math to create precise but unreadable definitions of any phenomenon.
a lot of the Reinin traits denote things that are already part of regular socionics. for example, merry/serious is just a name for Ti/Fe vs. Te/Fi values. it's the rest of the dichotomies that are more interesting in the sense of possibly getting at things that are not commonly known.
The Reinin dichotomies are a speculation based on a combination of the arbitrary chosen - within the Model A - Jungian dichotomies. One one hand it implies some strange groupings, like N and T, on the other it misses some other actual (real) distinctions, like External-Base:
- Logics or Sensing Base: focus on concrete and useful outcome.
- Ethics or Intuition Base: focus on abstract, inner or virtual aspects.
As we know, the Model A explains everything from simple fundamental rules, it is the periodic system of elements form which everything can be derived. Socionics doesn't need these extensive definitions to work and IME solely the ones who don't understand it very well believe in these given attributes unconditionally, clinging to their contingent notoriety and trying to "prove" them, one way or another.
Let's not forget that the traits of the Reinin dichotomies were not determined through scientific method, but rather a creative process: brainstorming to separate the types into these virtual groups, groups that emerged themselves as an exercise of mind, with no guarantee of having any validity. Such associations and parallels are made on a regular basis in different areas like art, advertising, interior design, just they're subjective and uncommon to the world of science. Some of them may have indeed a raesonable or empirical basis, which does not however guarantee accuracy. For instance, IMO the description of the Tactical/Strategic dichotomy has an understandable basis, except it is incorrectly applied to Beta and Delta Irrationals: it can be both observed on real life subjects and deduced from the Model, where they depend on the External/Internal nature of the Producing functions.
---
As we were, I find the title pretty appropriate for Tactical/Strategic, applied on the same types with the aforementioned exceptions [1], though I personally find some other differences more visible:
- Tacticals (F or N PoLR): decide in place whether they adopt or reject new facts, truthds or methods that require a change of path or a revision of knowledge. They may come back on them later, but only incidentally, if they recall, find again or are reminded about them.
- Strategics (T or S PoLR): they immediately reject the adoption of new principles or methods that disturb their path. However they always keep them in mind and, if appropriate, they absorb them slowly along the time.
The former [2] are typically the people who can quickly decide whether they want something or not (for instance a relationship), the latter [3] are the ones that need accomodation, regardless of wit they are waiting for something. Why this happens, simple: while the first (Base, Program) function is used constantly, the second (Creative) is used sequentially and intermittently in support of the former. When the latter is given the concrete properties of Sensing and Logics, the psyche is empowered to take exclusive decisions at any incremental step. These are people who can be impetuous, or can tell you whether they agree or not immediately, who are used to learn from mistakes, rather than building a whole picture before acting, or lawyer-type [4] or "works for now" people. I don't think ths dichotomy can be correctly determined on people one does not interract with for a sufficient period of time, like celebrities. IMO for now, the attitudes cannot be distinguished directly (behaviorally), the actual timing would be irrelevant to one's cognition process.
To mention that these changes do not necessarily mean change of direction or views, but rather including or excluding considerations (and methods, if the case). Strategic can be easily confused with Introverted and Rational, Tactical with Extroverted and Irrational, IMO pretty much a similar problem to the one that makes the confusion between Introverted Intuitive in MBTI VS Socionics: Introverted + Judicious/Decisive VS Rational/Irrational, the former pair not existent in MBTI, while the latter being behavioral in the system.
---
[1] - so remember, by Tactical/Strategic, I'm not referring to the same types as the Reinin dichotomy, though the two share 12 out of 16 types. SLE and SLI are therefore Tactical in this context, IEI and IEE are Strategic.
[2] - ILE, ESE, SLE, LSI, ILI, ESI, LSE, SLI
[3] - SEI, LII, EIE, IEI, SEE, LIE, IEE, EII
[4] - they quickly imagine something that works, then wait to be proven wrong or do it themselves at a latter time.
Last edited by The Ineffable; 11-13-2011 at 10:18 PM.
Sometimes. It's not 100% reliable and not good for testing.
-
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 2w1sw(1w9) helps others to live up to their own standards of what a good person is and is very behind the scenes in the process.
Tritype 1-2-6 stacking sp/sx
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html