How do I determine my own type?

[Beautiful sky]

I'm the dynamic type.

You both are a process type but the way in which you express your process is different, and I agree with you that he is the Static type.

And, you picking yourself, and looking at your own nature, would make you the introvert.

[Radio]

>ITT ad-hominems & hkkmr's ego crisis

[JWC3]

>ITT ad-hominems & hkkmr's ego crisis

LOL!

[silke]

I suppose reinin dichotomies can be a useful check against those kinds of stereotypes but I disagree that using stereotypes is the only alternative. I have seen plenty of well fleshed out type explanations that made no mention of reinin.

what parts of socionics served as a foundation of these explanations then, if not the stereotypes that the person has come to associate with elements, temperaments, and types?

reinin dichotomies come with their own stereotypes as well. merry = joking, declaring = blowhard, etc

that's just word play on the names of reinin dichotomies, it is easily dispelled if one examines and studies them in more depth

I think reinin dichotomies, being more vague and less written about, are more easily subject to abuse by people who can't justify the typing using elements. I think they're better used as a supplement.

the problem with analyzing types by elements is that elements don't exist in pure and perfect isolation from each other, but instead they are intertwined with their functioning closely integrated and affected by all the other elements within the type - these aggregates produce higher order effects that cannot be easily reduced to single elements any more (it's a case of strong emergence) - this is where Reinin dichotomies come into play because the are about taking a look at these higher level properties and sociotypes as holistic entities

in addition, for as much discussion as there has been on the elements on this forum, to this date they have not been clearly defined - it's not absolutely clear what they are supposed to represent, and as such they are subject to re-interpretation and abuse just as well

I disagree, and I disagree with any opinion that advocates a 'correct' way to use socionics.

you mean you disagree with giving any advice like this?

See, this is why you just ignore the dumb parts of socoionics. DarkAngelFireWolf69, Renin, Ganin, all the shit that wasn't directly from Augusta just contradicts what Augusta did. Not always, but often enough to create more confusion that it solves.

if so, i couldn't agree more

[JWC3]

you mean you disagree with giving any advice like this?

if so, i couldn't agree more

LOL! No I mean I disagree that my way is the only way or that any way is the only way, I mean I have an opinion, and maybe my opinion is right or completely wrong, but having an opinion or giving advice is decidedly different than having the answer.

[ashlesha]

what parts of socionics served as a foundation of these explanations then, if not the stereotypes that the person has come to associate with elements, temperaments, and types?

a nuanced understanding of elements, quadras, and temperaments. preferably a grounding in jung.

that's just word play on the names of reinin dichotomies, it is easily dispelled if one examines and studies them in more depth

word play is the most common mistake newbies make with reinin dichotomies, but its entirely possible for two different people to have two different takes on a dichotomy while neither fall back on simplistic over-literal definitions. reinin dichotomies aren't any more exempt from subjective interpretation and bias than any other parts of the theory.

the problem with analyzing types by elements is that elements don't exist in pure and perfect isolation from each other, but instead they are intertwined with their functioning closely integrated and affected by all the other elements within the type - these aggregates produce higher order effects that cannot be easily reduced to single elements any more (it's a case of strong emergence) - this is where Reinin dichotomies come into play because the are about taking a look at these higher level properties and sociotypes as holistic entities

you could make this go on forever. its probably better to analyze Ni+Te or Ni+Fe in contrast to simply Ni, sure. but that isn't to say there is no merit in examining Ni as a singular element. at some point you keep stretching until you say its better to analyze each person as a holistic element. reinin dichotomies aren't the highest order. its like looking at the stem and ignoring the roots as "just that worthless thing that happened to produce the stem."

in addition, for as much discussion as there has been on the elements on this forum, to this date they have not been clearly defined - it's not absolutely clear what they are supposed to represent, and as such they are subject to re-interpretation and abuse just as well

obviously. but people more frequently have opinions about what things like elements and quadras are about so by talking about types in those terms you more easily subject yourself to criticism. by using reinin dichotomies, so many people either don't pay attention to them or don't have strong opinions about how they should be interpreted so, purposefully or not, its like giving yourself a bit of a pass. it sounds "smart" and its usually not examined with such a critical eye.

[JWC3]

A wise man once showed me this video, perhaps it will shed light on everything discussed so far.

[Beautiful sky]

We are responding to a person's thread who isn't here any more.

[JWC3]

We are responding to a person's thread who isn't here any more.

Silly Maritsa, this was never about him.

[mu4]

you mean you disagree with giving any advice like this?

if so, i couldn't agree more

I didn't want to point it out since any discussion between me with JWC3 isn't worth my time, but it's good someone sees the hypocrisy in JWC3's posts.

The way I see Reinin is they predict configurations of information pathways and information "foundations" within the human psyche(maybe more than this).

Take aristocratic and democratic, Aristocratic are ST club and NF club while SF club and NT club are democratic.

The ST's all have S -> T or T -> S blocked in the ego, the information metabolism is processing information from one to the other. These are both external functions as well, while NF's have two internal function. Once you see that a ST has two external functions in the ego, and 2 NF's have 2 internal functions, you can compare them to Democratic which all have 1 external function and 1 internal function, given these differences, you can perform a analysis on the deductions and make observations based on these ideas. It points the way for exploration and Reinin gives one of the better mechanism in socionics for exploring the unknown.

Also take Static and Dynamic, I would call this information "foundations", because Static types have static functions within the mental ring and Dynamic functions within the vital ring and vice versa.

I haven't fully analyzed Reinin or all the Reinin dichotomies, but the ones that I'm not very clear on are the ones I am at least knowledgeable about my ignorance and have some guidance in doing future exploration.

I would say Reinin isn't for people that want to type individuals, as the 15 dichotomies isn't that relevant to typing. Dichotomies can give a hint of a type, but typing is only possible when the functions within the model A structure is well established. Right now given the lack of a measurement tool I see as valid, we must go with opinions and all the issues that brings.

[consentingadult]

What is wrong with you?

Nothing is wrong with me. The Self is a construct.

[DirectorAbbie]

Nothing is wrong with me. The Self is a construct.

What is that supposed to mean?
I've known who I am since I was 15.
It is utterly ridiculous to claim to know someone else when you don't even know yourself, as it is impossible to spend more time with another person than with yourself. Thus I disregard the typings of anyone who cannot type themselves.

[JWC3]

I didn't want to point it out since any discussion between me with JWC3 isn't worth my time, but it's good someone sees the hypocrisy in JWC3's posts.

Just because I'm a hypocrite doesn't mean I'm wrong.

[consentingadult]

What is that supposed to mean?
I've known who I am since I was 15.
It is utterly ridiculous to claim to know someone else when you don't even know yourself, as it is impossible to spend more time with another person than with yourself. Thus I disregard the typings of anyone who cannot type themselves.

May I recommend an introduction to Social Psychology, e.g:

http://www.amazon.com/Social-Psychol...9627480&sr=8-1

Chapter 3. Perceiving Individuals / Chapter 4. The Self.

[Croco]

We are responding to a person's thread who isn't here any more.

I am here

[The Ineffable]

I'm not a Ti-PoLR...and I don't think JWC is, either.

In fact his subsequent reactions are evidence that he might be Ti-PoLR. I don't see hkkmr's statement as ill-intended, to discredit JWC's views on this matter (bigoted), but just a fun-fact. He wouldn't bother to give further explanation if he was truly believing that JWC is actually incapable to understand, IMO. From my experience, this is how Ti-PoLRs (and Fi Egos) generally take such things, defensively; from the forum, I remember that instance when someone was pissed of at a manager who "thought she was dumb" just because he or she - the manager - used to make recurrent explanations when assigning tasks. There are cases when Ti types are in defensive, but out of the Super-Ego - being formerly subject to the judgments of Fi Egos (or so formulated) and their social consequences.

I never said your opinions are not worth expressing, just they're predictable and incurious. But the 4 original dichotomies are prone to the same sort of error that the Reinin dichotomies has, you will practice socionics the way you think you want to, nobody is dictating a correct way of doing this; however, it's impossible to ignore that the 4 Jungian dichotomies are very easily distorted and misapplied, you can see this in the entire study of MBTI in which applying the dichotomies create a great deal of confusion. Feel free to do whatever you want with the information available, this is every individuals perrogative, but I still need to point out that the position that the Jungian dichotomies are somehow more infallible than Reinin is not substantiated or validated, or even verifiable.

I fully agree. Although a common fallacy, it is still fascinating how some people ignore the fact that the four Jungian dichotomies are included in the Reinin dichotomies, or that other Rinin dichotomies are fundamental to the Model A, sometimes of the same tier [1] to the 4, sometimes even higher. Seems to me that the label that is assigned to each - "it is Reinin's" or "it is Jung's" - and their historical role matter to them more than their actual objective importance or their potentially correct or incorrect description (and usage).
---

[1] - so I said, the tier in Model A, not in reference to the four Jungian dichotomies, as it is commonly assumed, from the Reinin ranking.

[Beautiful sky]

I am here

Your thread has gone wild with posts and comments completely unrelated to you; does that not concern you in the least bit?

[Beautiful sky]

It is, almost by definition, impossible to know yourself. After years and years I still do not know what my type is if I have to go by type descriptions. It's much easier to figure out another person's identity than your own. So if you are comfortable with typing other people, intertype relations will tell you your own type. The bad news is: it takes a couple of years to become 'fluent' at typing others and understanding the subtleties of intertype relations.

I disagree with you; you can fundamentally know what you're all about; I think people lose sight of that as "the base" of what socionics really is; it isn't about the things about you that you learn, change, adapt etc.

I may have been way more judgementel about things that I wasn't doing when everyone else were when I was younger; for instance, I had an "ideal" that women shouldn't have sex at an early age; this "should" or "shouldn't" was Fi.

Now that I'm older and I've stepped outside of that Fi zone and since I don't hold hard and fast to my rules (as SEE would) but adapt to individuals, and that comes from raising teenage girls, my rules about "should" and "shouldn't" sex at a certain age, that I held when I was younger, have changed, but there are new "should" and "shouldn'ts" and new Fi "rules", that doesn't change the fact that I'm still doing Fi.

I hope, conceptually, this kinda makes sense.

[The Ineffable]

the problem with analyzing types by elements is that elements don't exist in pure and perfect isolation from each other, but instead they are intertwined with their functioning closely integrated and affected by all the other elements within the type - these aggregates produce higher order effects that cannot be easily reduced to single elements any more (it's a case of strong emergence) - this is where Reinin dichotomies come into play because the are about taking a look at these higher level properties and sociotypes as holistic entities

An important correction (not necessarily disagreeing with you): the elements are not "integrated" and the type is not an aggregate. In fact that way you actually contradict yourself; both "integration" and "aggregate" entail a standalone nature, which is a reification that is not an consequence of Socionics, but of misunderstanding.

Indeed they are functionally inseparable, but the aspects of virtually anything can be conceptually distinguishable, in our case the IEs, functions, dichotomies, and so on. Basically it is appropriate to separate the elements of a type in certain ways, but mistaken in others. It is not needed to learn these ways, the correct understanding of the concepts alone will dictate what is allowed to infer and what is not in every instance.

[consentingadult]

I disagree with you; you can fundamentally know what you're all about; I think people lose sight of that as "the base" of what socionics really is; it isn't about the things about you that you learn, change, adapt etc.

I may have been way more judgementel about things that I wasn't doing when everyone else were when I was younger; for instance, I had an "ideal" that women shouldn't have sex at an early age; this "should" or "shouldn't" was Fi.

Now that I'm older and I've stepped outside of that Fi zone and since I don't hold hard and fast to my rules (as SEE would) but adapt to individuals, and that comes from raising teenage girls, my rules about "should" and "shouldn't" sex at a certain age, that I held when I was younger, have changed, but there are new "should" and "shouldn'ts" and new Fi "rules", that doesn't change the fact that I'm still doing Fi.

I hope, conceptually, this kinda makes sense.

It makes sense, but you are wrong. It is impossible to know, since you cannot perceive yourself. Everything you know about yourself, is either constructed in your head, or learned indirectly, from other people. To make matters worse, the image you construct of yourself, is very much influenced by the construct other people have made of you, which might be an incorrect construct. Even more worse, we might actually start acting according to the stereotype other people have created of us.

It is true that Socionics is about those personality traits that are fixed, but even then social-psychological insights about how we arrive at a view of ourselves still applies: it is a construct, not a perception or analysis. Just the number of people on this forum that are uncertain of their type or change it frequently should be a clear indication that Social Psychology has got it right.

ETA: I make videos of people in which they present themselves, e.g. for work or business. It is very common that these people, after seeing themselves on video, say: "is that really me? I look very different from how I think I am!" By this they mean their personality, not so much their physical appearance.

A while ago there was a thread were jessica said something similar: while making the video she experienced herself as being expressive, but was shocked by the emotional flatness of her appearance on video.

[Croco]

Your thread has gone wild with posts and comments completely unrelated to you; does that not concern you in the least bit?

No