Dichotomies - 4 from Jung, 11 from Reinin, thousands to come

[JohnDo]

There are 6435 possible dichotomies.
We know 4 from Jung, 11 from Reinin. 6420 to come.
Any ideas? Picocchio came up with deterministic/indeterministic. Huginn came up with minimizing/maximizing (same types as Process/Result).

There are also Gulenko's 3 subtype dichotomies (only 2 are necessary):
contact/distant, connecting/ignoring and ititiating/terminal.
Are there more dichotomies for possible subtypes?

[crazedrat]

This is a meaningless piece of information. There is no magic number of maximum possible functions. We could have an infinite number of functions, the number is only limited by our mental ability to create them..

[JohnDo]

Determinist/Non-Determinist (according to Pinocchio):
- Determinist: ISFx, ENTx, ESTj, INFj, ISTp, ENFp
- Non-Determinist: INTx, ESFx, INFp, ESTp, ENFj, ISTj

Determinists:
- can see you after a long time and talk to you like no time has passed since your previous encounter

Non-Determinist:
- if you encounter them after many years they might take you as a stranger, the relationship begins again

------------------------------------

At the moment I'm not sure if this dichotomy works or has any practical use...
An explanation would have to be found in Model A...

[krieger]

This is a meaningless piece of information.

word.

Stick to Jung, quadras, temperaments and maybe Process/Result.

edit: Oh and Static/Dynamic, the most powerful of the Reinin dichotomies.

[MatthewZ]

There's this thing called redundancy.

[717495]

I don't even think I care about dichotomies... I mean I know that I'm an INTP in them, but generally speaking its not worth to consume them. Rather, focus on the essence of the information elements and quadra, not their abstract framework of categorizations, that detracts from learning what they are from an observational point of view. Reinin's dichotomies are kind of pointless... I relate to most of the sides he has created, both static and dynamic, ie, both aristocratic and democratic, ie. Not something to obsess over and try to interpret as being so essential to anything Socionics wise. I can obsess over information elements because they are holistic, and I know that for me Ni is of "dominance" through an array of reasons and relations. Saying someone is aristocratic means way less to me than to say they are delta. Delta implies something more specific to theory, something especially more constant, and something typically unmistakeable.

[Crispy]

I think additional dichotomies would be more helpful than hindering. If you think your mind is getting polluted then just throw the bad information in the recycle bin.

[somavision]

Did you reach the total number of dichotomies independantly?
The thread reminded me of this
The whole lot of useless nothing

As these dichomies need to be described and defined linguistically, the more you describe based on theory the greater the likely hood that your ideas diverge from reality.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

JohnDo, what do you talk about to people in real life?

[Brilliand]

There are 6435 possible dichotomies.
We know 4 from Jung, 11 from Reinin. 6420 to come.
Any ideas? Picocchio came up with deterministic/indeterministic. Huginn came up with minimizing/maximizing (same types as Process/Result).

There are also Gulenko's 3 subtype dichotomies (only 2 are necessary):
contact/distant, connecting/ignoring and ititiating/terminal.
Are there more dichotomies for possible subtypes?

This is, incidentally, Sergei Ganin's argument against the Reinin dichotomies: there are thousands of dichotomies, what's so great about those eleven?

The answer is, the mathematical pattern from which they arise. Most of those other dichotomies are probably not meaningful... if you can't derive them from structure, as has been done wiht the Reinin dichotomies, then you have to start at ground level in demonstrating that they're significant.

Anyhow, I can think of 32767 dichotomies. (I'm including the ones not evenly split 8:8.)

Er... subtypes? Including subtypes (for a total of 32 types), there are now 2147483647 dichotomies, including imbalanced ones.

[FDG]

Reinin dichotomies are orthogonal, you can't obtain any of them by a combination of any other two. This is not valid for any other kind of dichotomy.

[Brilliand]

Determinist/Non-Determinist (according to Pinocchio):
- Determinist: ISFx, ENTx, ESTj, INFj, ISTp, ENFp
- Non-Determinist: INTx, ESFx, INFp, ESTp, ENFj, ISTj

Determinist/Non-Determinist = Delta/Beta, or Well-Defined ^ Static in Smilexian terms. However, Smilingeyes never defined this, afaik... it's a full-cycle dichotomy, alternating with the Alpha/Gamma dichotomy (Socially open ^ Static). Though, maybe Smilingeyes defined these simply by defining the quadras...

So Pinocchio is noting that leanings toward side quadras follow the base function.

[Brilliand]

Reinin dichotomies are orthogonal, you can't obtain any of them by a combination of any other two. This is not valid for any other kind of dichotomy.

?

Feeling ^ (XOR) Merry = Static...

I get the impression that there's a typo that's changing your meaning (perhaps "can't"?).

[1981slater]

There are 6435 possible dichotomies.
We know 4 from Jung, 11 from Reinin. 6420 to come.
Any ideas?

I am buying some aspirins

[Creepy-Cyclops]

I guess what I should say is I don't see the point in creating dichotomies for the sake of it.

I can type people just fine with standard dichotomies and functions, anything else imo may as well just be personality related and can leave it at that.

[FDG]

?

Feeling ^ (XOR) Merry = Static...

I get the impression that there's a typo that's changing your meaning (perhaps "can't"?).

I didn't mean to include Feeling in the Reinin, only the non-Jungian eleven. What I exactly mean is: you can't create a third non-jungian reinin dichtomy by mixing other two non-jungian reinin dichotomies (ex. serious and aristocratic defines only 1/2 of judicious types, and so on). This isn't generally valid for any plausible dichotomy. (this was one of the problems encountered by Huggin when defining her minimizing/maximizing, and by JohnDo when "discovering" the dual-pairwise and dual-non-pairwise dichotomies)

[Khola aka Bee]

This is a meaningless piece of information. There is no magic number of maximum possible functions. We could have an infinite number of functions, the number is only limited by our mental ability to create them..

Oh come, come now. OBVIOUSLY the magic number is 42.

[1981slater]

Oh come, come now. OBVIOUSLY the magic number is 42.

Magic number is 32

[krieger]

The reason I like Static/Dynamic is because it allows functions to be understood in terms of dichotomies.

When you try to understand what Ne is apart from "intuition", the introvert/extrovert quality of functions doesn't help very much. To "perceive into" the function in some kind of intuitive way to determine that said "function" is "extroverted" is a really dubious approach. After all functions can not be directly seen, only people. Instead one needs to explain "possession of Ne" in terms of the combination of "being intuitive" and some other property of the person. In this case that property is Static: the property that is theoretically explained as having introversion distributed to one's J functions and extroversion to one's P functions. This means that identifying Ne is essentially the same thing as determining that the person is intuitive and Static. A lot of people already use Static/Dynamic in that way, but don't realize it. When people ask me to explain how Static/Dynamic can be detected, I should return the question: how do you do this magical thing where you determine that a function is extroverted? If anyone ever managed to answer that question to themselves they'd find out the process of identifying Static/Dynamic occurs at an intermediate stage!

edit.

Let me explain in a different way. Suppose a person has the belief that they can somehow determine that "a person's perceiving ego function is extroverted". They might explain it in terms of "determining that the person has an active spontaneous way of relating concepts" or something like that. Now socionics dictates that this kind of mentality would necessarily be accompanied by that of "having judging ego functions that are introverted". This quality they might explain as "the person has systematic beliefs that can be explained in terms of the relation to other such beliefs". But the fact that these two mentalities always appear together makes them one and the same. Calling the mentality "Static" instead, and always mentioning the two together is efficient and logical thing to do. It doesn't cause any kind of reduction of explanatory ability. It simply mentions the two in one go.

edit.

One more thing: saying a person "has extroverted perceiving functions" instead of the person "is Static" is like saying "the house is above averagely warm" when it is really on fire. It mentions a minor part of the truth when the real gist of the matter is something more encompassing.

[JohnDo]

Did you reach the total number of dichotomies independantly?
The thread reminded me of this
The whole lot of useless nothing

I read Ganin's article and thought it might be a good idea to search for some more dichotomies...

JohnDo, what do you talk about to people in real life?

Formula 1, politics, philosophy, everyday occurences... Why do you ask?

The answer is, the mathematical pattern from which they arise. Most of those other dichotomies are probably not meaningful... if you can't derive them from structure, as has been done wiht the Reinin dichotomies, then you have to start at ground level in demonstrating that they're significant.

Yeah, that is interesting. I'm a student of mathematics but it is not really obvious why Reinin's approach leads to significant dichotomies - at least Ganin and DeLong don't understand why these 11 dichotomies are more important than thousand other...

[krieger]

It's abominable that Reinin's name is being associated with these dichotomies at all, really. All he ever did was suggest names for a set of groups that are incredibly obvious candidates for trait detection. Anyone who thinks mathematics has anything to do with the dichotomies (or socionics) is blatantly missing the point.

[mu4]

The reason I like Static/Dynamic is because it allows functions to be understood in terms of dichotomies.

When you try to understand what Ne is apart from "intuition", the introvert/extrovert quality of functions doesn't help very much. To "perceive into" the function in some kind of intuitive way to determine that said "function" is "extroverted" is a really dubious approach. After all functions can not be directly seen, only people. Instead one needs to explain "possession of Ne" in terms of the combination of "being intuitive" and some other property of the person. In this case that property is Static: the property that is theoretically explained as having introversion distributed to one's J functions and extroversion to one's P functions. This means that identifying Ne is essentially the same thing as determining that the person is intuitive and Static. A lot of people already use Static/Dynamic in that way, but don't realize it. When people ask me to explain how Static/Dynamic can be detected, I should return the question: how do you do this magical thing where you determine that a function is extroverted? If anyone ever managed to answer that question to themselves they'd find out the process of identifying Static/Dynamic occurs at an intermediate stage!

edit.

Let me explain in a different way. Suppose a person has the belief that they can somehow determine that "a person's perceiving ego function is extroverted". They might explain it in terms of "determining that the person has an active spontaneous way of relating concepts" or something like that. Now socionics dictates that this kind of mentality would necessarily be accompanied by that of "having judging ego functions that are introverted". This quality they might explain as "the person has systematic beliefs that can be explained in terms of the relation to other such beliefs". But the fact that these two mentalities always appear together makes them one and the same. Calling the mentality "Static" instead, and always mentioning the two together is efficient and logical thing to do. It doesn't cause any kind of reduction of explanatory ability. It simply mentions the two in one go.

edit.

One more thing: saying a person "has extroverted perceiving functions" instead of the person "is Static" is like saying "the house is above averagely warm" when it is really on fire. It mentions a minor part of the truth when the real gist of the matter is something more encompassing.

I think Static and Dynamic information elements look at the same things from opposing angles. They are the opposite side of the same coin.

Ne = Internal Static Object
Si = External Dynamic Field

Si and Ne are mirrored functions and the information concatenation produces a more complete informational module. Essentially this is how duality form because information concatenation between two duals produces and preserves a more complete informational module like creating a chemical bond between molecules.

As far as maximum number of dichotomies, this is a factor of how much functional resolution we have. Right now we're at 4 bit system which limits the descriptive combination.