Reinin Dichotomies: Constructivist/Emotivist

[Joy]

CONSTRUCTIVISM - EMOTIVISM
KONSTRUKTIVIZM - EMOTIVIZM

Constructivists (Types with accepting ethics and producing logic):
Konstruktivisty ("programmnye" etiki i "tvorcheskiye" logiki):

1. When contacting with other people they try to reduce or completely avoid the stage of emotional contact (To "skip" it). They do not consider emotional attitude as a necessary element of interaction (In communication, conjoined actions, undertakings, they do things without emotionally "adjusting" to the circumstances)
2. For the constructivist emotional "anchors" are important (Connected to a certain place, a book, a film and so on) which resonate with their internal emotional conditions. With their help they keep or strengthen their internal emotional state. They are inclined to re-reed a book or to visit the same place again just to go through the emotions connected with that place.
3. They can get "emotionally hooked", they can feel strong experience regardless of whether they like the overall moment (For example, they hate the film but love a scene from it that always makes them laugh, or cry and so on)
4. They with greater difficulty disassociate themselves from others emotions, experiences then with requests to do or consider something.

Emotivists (Types with accepting logic and producing ethics):
Emotivisty ("programmnye" logiki i "tvorcheskiye" etiki):

1. While interacting with other people they try to get them into the "correct" emotional state (One which they can be "in sync" with). In interaction they are very much "in the spirit" of the interaction (For them conversation are means to "immerse themselves" in the atmosphere). While discussing business they have a tendency to "wander off" and "go off" on an emotional exchange.
2. Emotivists will rather go for a new impression, experience then return to something already passed, lived. They will re-read a book or revisit the same place frequently only in hope of finding something overlooked or new.
3. Information (For example, a book, a film, a work of art, construction) perceived as unprofessional, "low quality", does not move the emotivist emotionally, it leaves them cold.
4. With greater difficulty do they separate themselves form others requests then form others emotions or experiences.

Hypothesis

Constructivists less critically accept emotions and as a result can get overwhelmed by them. After achieving an emotional state, constructivists stay in it for a prolonged period of time. They have difficulty switching, "disconnecting" from that state and because of that they try to avoid unacceptable or unpleasant emotions. In emotivists a calls for action/requests are not critically estimated and because of it they can get overwhelmed by them. After getting into a theme they stay in that mode of operation for a prolonged period of time and have difficulty switching, "disconnecting" (And because of it try to avoid unpleasant requests).

Examples

Constructivists:
"I try to reduce emotional contact. I always start with a set of automatic responses (Give slippers, pour some tea, coffee...)" "If somebody has come for a shoulder to cry on I know what to do" "it is so much easier to do "business" style interactions (Interaction by pertaining to the matter at hand)" "I prefer when people offer me concrete solutions to my questions – not comfort or sympathy" "if I wish to help then I will certainly discuss the matter at hand. Very rarely will I be inquiring to find out just "how's it going?" "How's it going" become apparent as we discuss" "I listen to music depending on my mood" " I re-read books for several paragraphs... is that what it means to be "poorly written"?" "Whether or nor it disturbs me is what's important" "When I visit the same places I once visited it's as if I have returned home" "I try not to see movies that I know are emotionally burdening. By seeing it I'll become exactly what I don't want to (Enter an undesirable emotional mood)" "I can long for past experiences even with people I casually met" "The first time you see a comedy is to get a laugh or two, after that it's to relive the experience"

Emotivist:
"First of all, I attempt to create a comfortable psychological atmosphere. I try to help people "cope" with a new situation, help them "accommodate" so that they feel at ease." "I do my interaction with words, not actions" "If the emotional atmosphere of a conversation is negative I consider the conversation "wasted" (Unsuccessful)" "Before a dialogue I notice the emotional states of people involved and I try to keep or make their attitudes "positive"" "it's easier to change an emotional background" "I can talk about various things I have no interest in or do not believe in simply for the sake of maintaining a "positive spirit"" "I have a need for new experiences so I will more likely go somewhere where I've never been before. If I do return to a place I visited it's where change occurred since I last visited" "I don't watch bad movies and badly written books leave me cold" "I'll re-read a book - if I'd forgotten it" "If I'm asked to consider/do something what I'll most remember is the act of request itself"

Constructivism: xxFjs and xxTps
Emotivism: xxFps and xxTjs

[Joy]

This is a very interesting dichotomy to me...

I used to think that I was an ethical type because I am an emotivist. An example would be in dealing with a customer complaint... I believe that a person is physically incapable of hearing what you have to say until they have had their say... so I let them complain and I say something like, "That sounds really frustrating. Let's see what we can do to take care of this" or something similar that shows that I am validating their feelings... it's a means to an end, not genuine empathy. I do try to put myself in their situation, but it's only because it helps me figure out how to solve the problem. I sorta wanna deal with the emotional aspect of situations first because if you don't emotions can get in the way.

[Nessy]

I'm definitely a Constructivist. I just realized as soon as seeing these labels

[Joy]

DO NOT just look at the labels!

[Phaedrus]

I absolutely cannot identify with emotivist. I am clearly a constructivist.

[Joy]

I want to make it clear that I dislike dealing with other people's emotions. That's why I get it out of the way first... if I don't, I'll have to deal with their emotions every step of the way, and it'll prevent progress. It would be much more frustrating to deal with someone's protests on a matter halfway into it (especially when you didn't anticipate it) than to address their emotions upfront and get them behind you and your efforts.

[Gilly]

Emotivist.

[Nessy]

DO NOT just look at the labels!

Don't mind, I read not to misunderstand. But anyway this was quickest and easiest to decide.

[Joy]

Many of the dichotomy labels are very misleading.

[XoX]

Constructivist. Enuf said

[oyburger]

I found it hard to identify with either of them, but if I had to chose, I'd say Constructivist.

[JuJu]

Constuctivist

[implied]

totally emotivist and the person i am dating is a heavy constructivist.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Slacker]

I'm an emotivist and my husband is a constructivist.

[Expat]

This is one is a bit ambiguous for me.

I am an Emotivist from my understanding of the basics of the dichotomy and according to items 1,3 and 4.

However, in item 2 there is a lot of Constructivist in me. I do re-read books or re-watch movies - or bits of them - also for the emotional connections. The same goes for re-visiting places.

If I associate a particular place with a very strongly negative emotional experience, I will avoid it.

[XoX]

However, in item 2 there is a lot of Constructivist in me. I do re-read books or re-watch movies - or bits of them - also for the emotional connections. The same goes for re-visiting places.

If I associate a particular place with a very strongly negative emotional experience, I will avoid it.

Hmm...damn I didn't read this stuff well enough. Is that emotionalism? If I find something I like I re-re-re-re it quite a many times. Actually I'm often in search of something good enough to repeat. So many things suck that when you find something that doesn't it is better to repeat it to the death. Or something

[FDG]

However, in item 2 there is a lot of Constructivist in me. I do re-read books or re-watch movies - or bits of them - also for the emotional connections. The same goes for re-visiting places.

If I associate a particular place with a very strongly negative emotional experience, I will avoid it.

Hmm...damn I didn't read this stuff well enough. Is that emotionalism? If I find something I like I re-re-re-re it quite a many times. Actually I'm often in search of something good enough to repeat. So many things suck that when you find something that doesn't it is better to repeat it to the death. Or something

I *think* that the best distinction for this dichotomy is that Emotion-creating are able to create a "good mood" which is the necessary background for conversating, whereas CC lack this ability and so when two CC engage in a like, date, it is not easy to build up a good atmosphere

[Joy]

Expat, that sounds like the same kind of nostalgic thinking I use, imo, to provide Fi for myself.

FDG, I disagree, at least for myself. Mine is more like getting rid of potential problems and making the emotional atmosphere neutral. See the two posts I wrote on the first page of this thread.

[FDG]

Mine is more like getting rid of potential problems and making the emotional atmosphere neutral..

= good mood

if it's not bad, then it's good

[Joy]

I prefer neutral... emotionally charged atmosphere are draining.

[XoX]

However, in item 2 there is a lot of Constructivist in me. I do re-read books or re-watch movies - or bits of them - also for the emotional connections. The same goes for re-visiting places.

If I associate a particular place with a very strongly negative emotional experience, I will avoid it.

Hmm...damn I didn't read this stuff well enough. Is that emotionalism? If I find something I like I re-re-re-re it quite a many times. Actually I'm often in search of something good enough to repeat. So many things suck that when you find something that doesn't it is better to repeat it to the death. Or something

I *think* that the best distinction for this dichotomy is that Emotion-creating are able to create a "good mood" which is the necessary background for conversating, whereas CC lack this ability and so when two CC engage in a like, date, it is not easy to build up a good atmosphere

I don't know...I can build up a good atmosphrere if I want to but it is VERY draining and generally I can only make myself do it for a short time and then it drops. Thus when I'm one on one with someone I guess I fall easily into constructivist mode. When I'm in a bigger group then I can every now and then "inject" some emotion into the group and they sort of keep it up themselves so I don't have to do it. But somehow I still think I'm constructivist because I like it when other people sustain the emotional atmosphere. I might even be drawn to these kind of people to some extent. Anyways this is perhaps the hardest category.

[Expat]

I *think* that the best distinction for this dichotomy is that Emotion-creating are able to create a "good mood" which is the necessary background for conversating, whereas CC lack this ability and so when two CC engage in a like, date, it is not easy to build up a good atmosphere

No, it's not that construct-creating lack this ability. That would mean that ENFjs and ESFjs are less able to create a good mood than ENTjs and ESTjs, which makes no sense.

It's rather that construct-creators have difficulty separating the mood they create from their own emotions, so they prefer not to create the mood just for the sake of starting - say - a business conversation.

[Ms. Kensington]

I want to make it clear that I dislike dealing with other people's emotions. That's why I get it out of the way first... if I don't, I'll have to deal with their emotions every step of the way, and it'll prevent progress. It would be much more frustrating to deal with someone's protests on a matter halfway into it (especially when you didn't anticipate it) than to address their emotions upfront and get them behind you and your efforts.

could you give an example of how you find "good" emotions draining (maybe from your mother or some other female you find close and mature, not a male who is giving you attention, or from a "weak" female)? Emotional problems are conflicts that I also like to avoid, but I deal with it differently than, say, an F type.

Btw, I identify with your quote for myself.

[Joy]

"Good" emotions can be draining when people are trying to emotionally engage others. I think that's the key... but they're also just eshausting to watch. I don't think that's what this dichotomy is about though... I think that is more of the Merry vs. Serious dichotomy perhaps?

[FDG]

I *think* that the best distinction for this dichotomy is that Emotion-creating are able to create a "good mood" which is the necessary background for conversating, whereas CC lack this ability and so when two CC engage in a like, date, it is not easy to build up a good atmosphere

No, it's not that construct-creating lack this ability. That would mean that ENFjs and ESFjs are less able to create a good mood than ENTjs and ESTjs, which makes no sense.

Definitely true IME with them, they tend to get pissed at me for being unresponsive

[limNol]

What are your thoughts on the constructivist/emotivist dichotomy (good description on WS if you're not familiar with it)? In particular, d'you relate to it in light of your self-typing?

Personally, I think it seems like one of the most obvious traits in people I know pretty well, and I'm surprised people don't make more use of it in typing people.

Also, a random observation- I think constructivist types are more likely to have obsessive tendencies. Obviously this is a general statement and this stuff isn't always type-related, but I think the way constructivists make more use of 'emotional anchors' makes them more likely to fall into obsessive, even addictive patterns, of relying on specific activities to reproduce certain emotional states.

I think Reinin dichotomies in general deserve more discussion and exploration, even if said exploration reveals that some of them are bullshit, but constructivism/emotivism in particular keeps catching my eye because it seems very sharply defined IRL.

[Pa3s]

I agree. This trait really seemed to be one of the most obvious in most people I tried to type. However, combined with the other Reinin dichtotomies and the jungian ones, there are too many contradictions in my opinion. It's the same with most subtypes. You can't comprehend every factor which is given with both types, main- and subtype. Some traits of the subtypes even neutralize the other ones, which is very confusing.

[EyeSeeCold]

It's easy to spot. However you must take in to consideration peer pressure. With INFps I sometimes find the discussion switching between matters of recent and old experiences, & accomplishments, productivity and professional development.

It seems that conversation with other constructivists tend to be more structured and directed, while conversation with emotivists are free associative and dependent on impulse.

[blankblank]

I chose when one of the dichotomies I related to the most...and it turns out all the ones I thought I was are the ones EIIs are. Wow.

Anyway, the constructivist description explains why I'm an empath (emotionally, not magically *rolls eyes*). So I do agree with it. But it's given me a reason to be jealous of emotivists.

Sometimes personality theory helps you understand others...and sometimes it makes it easier to hate others. *facepalm*

[limNol]

It's the same with most subtypes. You can't comprehend every factor which is given with both types, main- and subtype. Some traits of the subtypes even neutralize the other ones, which is very confusing.

I'm skeptical of subtypes in general. They can be helpful sometimes, but it also seems like people can use them to try to make socionics into something it's not. Like when people realize that socionics is limited by virtue of the fact that there are only a few socionics types and six billion people in the world, they panic and start trying to find ways to pull new socionics types out of thin air. Obviously, this isn't always the case -- splitting types into two subtypes based on the emphasis of different ego functions in particular makes sense a lot of the time -- but I do think there's this tendency to play fast and loose with subtypes that can add a lot of ambiguity to socionics in the way you describe.

It seems that conversation with other constructivists tend to be more structured and directed, while conversation with emotivists are free associative and dependent on impulse.

Yeah, this is why it surprises me that duals are opposite in terms of this dichotomy. You'd think they'd drive each other crazy sometimes.

Sometimes personality theory helps you understand others...and sometimes it makes it easier to hate others. *facepalm*

Haha, but the more we understand people, the easier it is to hate them. Isn't that why so many people hate themselves?

[Creepy-male]

I never liked it. It seems broken in my case. Emotivist doesn't apply in any specific or useful way, and Contructivist is mixed being a very good fit and completely contradictory to how I am.

The same criticisms I can level at most Reinin dichotomies.

[FDG]

I also have a difficult time envisioning how an Emotivist+Constructivist pairing wouldn't aggravate or alienate one another.

They do aggravate each other a bit, that's the point. Emotivists prefer to bullshit around (when talking, of course) and speak non-seriously, constructivists like to get to the point. Both force each other either to take yourself less seriously (Emo vs Constr) or to actually carry out a serious conversation without diverting from the main topic (Constr vs Emo).

[The Exception]

Also, a random observation- I think constructivist types are more likely to have obsessive tendencies. Obviously this is a general statement and this stuff isn't always type-related, but I think the way constructivists make more use of 'emotional anchors' makes them more likely to fall into obsessive, even addictive patterns, of relying on specific activities to reproduce certain emotional states.

As an LII I'm supposed to be emotivist but I'm rather obsessive about alot of things.

It seems that conversation with other constructivists tend to be more structured and directed, while conversation with emotivists are free associative and dependent on impulse.

I do both. I do like some structure and purpose to conversation and easily get impatient when others can't quickly get to the point. Yet I do alot of the free association stuff and can easily go off on tangents. Oh, that reminds me of X! But I guess that's just my creative talking.

They do aggravate each other a bit, that's the point. Emotivists prefer to bullshit around (when talking, of course) and speak non-seriously, constructivists like to get to the point. Both force each other either to take yourself less seriously (Emo vs Constr) or to actually carry out a serious conversation without diverting from the main topic (Constr vs Emo).

I don't really like bullshitting around. I'd rather get to the point.

Of all the reinin dichotomies, the constructivist/emotivist one is the hardest one to place myself one because I relate to a fair amount in both of the descriptions. I did a poll a while back asking forum members which dichotomies they saw in me and people were voting emotivist but I'm still not all that convinced. As an LII, I should be emotivist but feel like I'm on the constructivist/emotivist line with this. Maybe it's because I also relate alot to the EII and ILE types, both of which are constructivists.

[Suz]

same. I related to some aspects of both, actually leaning more constructivist if anything. (IEEs are supposed to be emotivist theoretically).

[Aleksei]

Constructivist. Absolutely.

[limNol]

Subtypes are fine so long as it's demonstrable that the subtypes are of the same base type—for example, between a hypothetical Te-ENTj and Ni-ENTj, both should share properties of being Gamma and EJ; if they don't, then something's not right. In this sense, subtypes aren't necessary per say—i.e. it would be fine and well to simply call both of them ENTj and leave it at that if desired. But if applied in a way that keeps the core ideas intact and coherently extends from them, subtypes can provide a layer of clarification that helps sort out intra-type differences.

What gives subtypes a bad name is when people use them sloppily w/o any sort of consistent methodology, as this typically results in attempts to justify typings that don't fit the base type and adds to that ambiguity you speak.

There's also a practical limit IMO on how many subtypes there should be per type. I cap it at 2, if only because I don't have a large enough data pool to trust any further precision beyond that. 4 subtypes might be plausible… but when it gets into 8 and 16+ subtypes, that's a bit ridiculous. Instead of actually explaining anything, it only seems to exponentially increase the odds someone will use a quirky subtype argument as ad-hoc justification for a typing.

Another bad use of subtypes (and Socionics in general), is people applying it as a catch-all theory to explain anything and everything about human psychology. Especially when there are hundreds of existing theories (with research to back them) explaining many of these aspects far better. At best, Socionics explains only a narrow cross-section of cognitive/information processing and makes some suggestions about how certain variations in this influence social interaction between individuals. It's better to keep the theory within those limits, and it would probably reduce some of the superfluous subtyping practices.

QFT.

A few seem legit like Merry/Serious, Resolute/Judicious, Dynamic/Static, and Democratic/Aristocratic. But the IE-basis for these is pretty straightforward and equivalent in meaning AFAIK. The rest are still an enigma to me.

I feel the same way about some Reinin dichotomies, but the theoretical basis of constructivism/emotivism seems pretty solid -- doesn't it make sense that types with ethical IEs as functions 1, 4, 6, and 7 would process emotions and relationships differently than types with IEs as functions 2, 3, 5, and 8?


I think the reason so many of you guys find this dichotomy ambiguous is that most descriptions of this dichotomy out there outline it in terms of traits that are associated with it instead of cutting to the essence of it. IMO the important point is that constructivists, since they have ethical functions as 1/7 or 4/6, are much more directed and purposeful in their emotional energy; they seem to have an emotional 'agenda.' Emotivists, on the other hand, with ethical functions as 2/8 or 3/5, use emotion energy as something more free-flowing that feeds into their dominant agenda and the more 'rigid,' goal-oriented areas of their psyche (functions 1, 4, 6, and 7). The only way to understand the traits associated with this dichotomy is in this context; otherwise, it doesn't really make sense, and you're going to end up typing yourself as a constructo-emotivist or something.

I'm supposed to be Emotivist too, but I fit better (more or less, I think?) with Constructivist. Some of Emotivist sounds like Merry to me, i.e. "Tend to concentrate foremost on the emotional background of interaction" wtf.

This is why the existing descriptions of constructivism/emotivism are useless if you don't interpret them in light of the essential difference between inert and contact ethics (like I was describing above). For instance, a Fe-ego constructivist is still attuned to these nuances in emotional atmosphere but tends to be much more focused and directed in creating specific emotions and can therefore come across as business-like in many interactions. Similarly, Te-ego constructivists, while their primary focus is still on Te and everything associated with it, have a certain emotional fluidity in their interactions by virtue of the fact that they don't have ethical IEs as functions 1, 4, 6, or 7.

Think of the way ESEs and SEIs use Fe differently, or LIEs and ILIs for that matter.

At first it seems paradoxical that being more focused on Fe or Fi could make you less open to the emotional background of a situation, but it makes perfect sense when you think about it.

As an LII I'm supposed to be emotivist but I'm rather obsessive about alot of things.

Yeah, any type can be obsessive. I think the difference is that constructivists obsess over things as a way of invoking and re-invoking particular emotional states in themselves. I'm thinking that makes them more prone to obsessive/addictive tendencies generally, but obviously that's pure hypothesis since you'd need to analyze a fairly large group of people to confirm that.

[EyeSeeCold]

I take back what I said earlier.

I think the biggest difference is in the emotional background like the descriptions already describe. Constructivists enter a conversation and speak about exactly what they want to discuss without preparation.

With Emotivists, what they really want to talk about is put on hold until everyone is in the right mood. Constant positive feedback is given to keep the atmosphere appropriate.

I'm not sure but that's what it seems like. Basically, buttering up vs get to the point.

[krieger]

You can understand Emotivism/Constructivism by looking at the distribution of Focal/Diffuse over Merry/Serious among the Strong functions of a type.

Focal/Diffuse is a function dichotomy that can explain many phenomena in socionics that I recommend people to try to understand. The terms mean roughly what their label implies: Focal is focused on in a singular way and considered absolute, Diffuse is seen as more of a transient, secondary thing that just manifests as a side-effect of something more weighty.

Focal = Base/Dynamic or Creative/Static
Diffuse = Base/Static or Creative/Dynamic

In Emotivists, Serious Strong functions are Focal and Merry Strong functions are Diffuse. Focal and Serious both refer to a character of, well, "seriousness", so in Emotivists the seriousness is very well compartmentalized. There is a very clear distinction between when the person is being Serious and when s/he is joking or dramatizing things a little for "fun".

In Constructivists, Serious Strong functions are Diffuse and Merry Strong functions are Focal. This roughly means that their dramatic (Merry), emotive messages are taken seriously by them. I previously called this "drama that wants to be taken seriously".

[FDG]

You can understand Emotivism/Constructivism by looking at the distribution of Focal/Diffuse over Merry/Serious among the Strong functions of a type.

Focal/Diffuse is a function dichotomy that can explain many phenomena in socionics that I recommend people to try to understand. The terms mean roughly what their label implies: Focal is focused on in a singular way and considered absolute, Diffuse is seen as more of a transient, secondary thing that just manifests as a side-effect of something more weighty.

Focal = Base/Dynamic or Creative/Static
Diffuse = Base/Static or Creative/Dynamic

In Emotivists, Serious Strong functions are Focal and Merry Strong functions are Diffuse. Focal and Serious both refer to a character of, well, "seriousness", so in Emotivists the seriousness is very well compartmentalized. There is a very clear distinction between when the person is being Serious and when s/he is joking or dramatizing things a little for "fun".

In Constructivists, Serious Strong functions are Diffuse and Merry Strong functions are Focal. This roughly means that their dramatic (Merry), emotive messages are taken seriously by them. I previously called this "drama that wants to be taken seriously".

Nice.