Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Reinin Dichotomies Study [untranslated]

  1. #1
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    United Kingdom
    30 Post(s)
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Reinin Dichotomies Study [untranslated]

    In this article are presented results of research involving Reinin's groups carried out in 2002-2003 by the socionics work group at the laboratory of interdisciplinary researches of The Institute of Biology and Psychology of Humans (IBPCH). It describes 11 basis Reinin's groups (Which are independent of Jung's work) and advances a number of hypothesis in socionics and also actual statements of research subject are used (Presented). The results of the research indicate an independent existence of each of Reinin's groups. The process of determining the groups is substantially corrected, augmented and extended upon from previously existing methods.

    Keywords: type, typology, analytical approach in describing personality, socionika, psychology, Reinin's groups.


    Additional типообразующие attributes, whose existence has been theoretically proved by G.R.Reinin in 1984 is an important task of socionics as a science. Since the moment of their publication attempts to describe Reinin's groups (In the real world) do not stop, nor do the attempts to prove the absence of those. Among those it is possible to cite work of G. R. Reynin himself [ 4, 5, 7 ] and A. Augustinavichyute [ 2 ], and also V.I.Stratiyevskoy, V.V.Gulenko [3], N.L.Savitsky, E.S.Filatovoy [8] and many others. However the reasons for our research were seminars by T.N.Prokofevoy in St.Petersburg during whom participants were acquainted with results of her long-term work in the given area.

    The purpose of the work of the work group was an attempt to reveal independent behavior (Existence) of each Reininas attribute, and also checking obtained results with results of previous such experiments. Since the attributes (Groups) are dichotomous, it was expected to obtain in each case two expressed poles that are manifested independent of other typical special features of the participants like Jungian functions or other Reininas attributes (Groups).

    The approach used was "the method of inverse problem" (G. R. Reinin [ 4 ]) and consists of the following: the group of subjects, whose socionics types did not cause differences during the expert's estimation, was divided into two parts in accordance with the specific attribute being estimated (Observed). After that all participants in turns spoke on the assigned neutral theme (First one group which presented one pole of the Reinin group, then the other: for example, first spoke dynamics, then statics). This way the presence of a difference in their statements, their behavior or the absence of one came to light as did the nature of the differences. Speech features (Used words, prevalence of those or other parts of speech, the form of construction of phrases), nonverbal reactions, the specific character of the described behavior by subjects, the specific character of the observed behavior by experts, expressed (Displayed) positions, etc. were observed.

    Besides the members of the work group, who also appeared in the role of experts, representatives of "missing" types were invited and were subjected to the same approach that the members of the work group were subjected to. In total the number of those participating was around 100 people with no less then 20 people for each attribute.

    Here are the results of our study.


    Statics (Introvert-rationals and extravert-irrationals):
    Statiki (introverty-ratsionaly i ekstraverty-irratsionaly):

    1. Statics view reality as sets of episodes, scenes, pictures. The consciousness of statics is oriented towards perceiving these separate, individual states, and not as continuous flows of changes.
    2. When statics give descriptions of events, they are inclined to generalize the event itself and treat that event as just another event among similar events (" I usually celebrate New year...").
    3. In stories by statics there is one main character who is the central focus of the story and this almost never changes during the whole story.
    4. In stories of statikov descriptions of states dominate over descriptions of processes; transition from one state to another is carried out not through a continuous transition, but through jumps from one state to another.
    5. Lexicon: frequent usage of "to be" as a catenative verb ("to become (Something), to be (Something)"), frequent use of impersonal proposals with modal verbs ("to want", "to can (To be able to)"; "it is possible to make" instead of "make"), usage of no-verb constructions.

    Dynamics (Introvert-irrationals and extravert-rationals):
    Dinamiki (introverty-irratsionaly i ekstraverty-ratsionaly):

    1. For dynamics current events are viewed as a sequence which is not decomposed into separate episodes. The consciousness of dynamics is oriented towards perceiving continuous flows of changes as oppose to discrete states.
    2. When describing an event dynamics are not inclined to generalize and describe the concrete event that happened ("I have lead the last New year..."). Through their descriptions one gets the impression that the dynamics are at the center of the described event even though they are just involved in it.
    3. In stories by dynamics usually all characters become main ones at some point during the story (There is a speech, segment about them), even inanimate objects.
    4. In stories of dynamics descriptions of processes dominate (Something occurring, lasting a time frame, but not something that already occurred).
    5. Lexicon: they use verbs of action which do not have a direct object ("went", "made", "brought", "settle", "cheered themselves", "cried a little"). In their stories they use many semantic verbs which express actions of the storyteller and other characters in the story and interaction between all of them.


    It is possible to draw an analogy with grammatical construction of offers, proposals. The difference between static and dynamic speech is similar to the difference between different kinds of verbs in Russian: static's speech corresponds to verbs of perfect (Certain past) kind (" I have made "), and dynamic's speech to verbs of imperfect (Not certain past) kind (" I did"). In English language static speech corresponds to simple (Indefinite) tenses and dynamic to long (Continuous) tenses.
    It is possible to draw another, but this time technical, analogy: modern digital cameras can save their contents in two different ways: they can either save them as segments or a write a digital video. In a similar way the surrounding reality is fixed in the human mind as either separate packets (Pictures) or as a continuous "video".


    "The New year is exhausting" "It would be desirable to conduct the New Year..." "But sadly... (luckily, unfortunately)" "I stayed at home" "We were on a trip" "This holiday was better in comparison to other ones"

    "The christmas tree smells nice" "The house is filled with christmas spirit" "This New Year they did that and that..." "We emptied the whole bottle" "We gathered together, sang songs, celebrated" "In the New year I expect a miracle... but instead always comes disappointment"


    Askers (Intutives from the I and II quadra, sensors from the III and IV quadra):
    Kvestimy (intuity I i II kvadr, sensoriki III i IV kvadr):

    1. Askers have a tendency to use interrogative intonations. Their statements sound far less categorical than those of declarers.
    2. Askers are inclined to answer a question with a question. Quite often they begin their story with phrases like "What should I tell you about?...". They often asks question that serve no purpose and require no answer ("Will you be there? - Who? I? I'll be there!") and repeat questions they've been asked even though they heard and fully understood them ("Will you be there? - Will I be there? Well..."). Often they use questions as means to keep the conversation going (For instance they may ask questions just to buy time to think of the answers)
    3. Askers, to a large degree, conduct communication in a form of a question and an answer. Always conducting dialogues with who ever they are talking to ("I would like to hear your response", "Ask me, I'll answer") or in imaginary conversations (internal "dialogue"). Even if the story of the asker was planned as a monologue, as a rule it decomposes into fragments (question - answer) inevitably turning into a dialogue.
    4. The asker quickly and at once reacts to a question set in the path of it's monologue (Independent of importance and rationality/irrationality of the question asked) – answers the question then continues where they left off. As they are naturally prone to a dialogue style of communication over a "meek"(Unrequited) monologue mode, they prefer when they are asked questions when in monologue mode. Also because of that it takes great effort to stay on course and resist the temptation to stray of course by interrupting the interlocutor with questions that could possibly take them of course.

    Declarers (Sensors from the I and II quadra, intuitives from the III and IV quadra)
    Deklatimy (sensoriki I i II kvadr, intuity III i IV kvadr):

    1. When declarers speak they're inclined to use affirmative intonations and because of that they are often perceived as confident or as categorical. Even their questions are often relayed in an affirmative tone.
    2. Declarers are inclined to ask questions to receive/get answers to them. Unlike askers, they rarely answer a question with a question or ask questions that are conversational surplus or ask questions as a way to keep the conversation going.
    3. Declarers are inclined to communicate in forms of monologues, where each party has "it's turn". Because of that they subconsciously attempt to transform a dialogue into a monologue (Either their own or that of their interlocutor by just listening without interrupting) and as a result of that the conversation ends up sounding like a sequence of two alternating monologues.
    4. Declarers can lose their train of thought when they are interrupted with questions during their monologues and because of that they usually wait and respond to such questions later. When asked a question "on topic" they will usually asks the person who asked the question to be patient as they are getting to that or to wait till they are finished and will try to incorporate their answer into their monologue. They relate with greater understanding to the desire to not to be interrupted while they are speaking and because of that they avoid asking questions while their interlocutor is speaking even if they are "on topic" and prefer to ask questions and voice reciprocal arguments after their interlocutor has finished speaking.


    The asker and declarer difference can be explained by a parallel of conducting narration in two different literary genres. For the declarer it's a finished narration, the full story, you can see the beginning, the culmination and the outcome, while the askers have more of a play like mentality with constant exchanges between characters.


    1. The orientation of the primary function strengthens the manifestation of each of the attribute: extraversion pronounces the declaring attribute while introversion pronounces the asking attribute.
    2. Nonverbal communication is more clearly expressed in the asker then in the declarer (Eye contact, gestures)
    3. In written speech declarers are more inclined to replace questions with a narrative on the questions essence while askers are more inclined to replace narration with questions or exclamations (As if demanding an answer, provoking the reader to a response)


    "Is there more then one way? Yes" (The person has fully repeated the question they were asked) "Where to begin? Well, what would you like to know? Yesterday I went..." (The response to a question "what did you do yesterday" is with a series of questions practically removing the significance of giving an answer)

    "When people list their interests I don't understand whether it is with the intention to pursue the interests or what?" (The question sounds like a statement)
    Declarer: Will you be there?
    Asker: Who? I? Very well.


    Positivists (Extroverts from the I and III quadra, introverts from the II and IV quadra):
    pozitivisty (ekstraverty I i III kvadr, introverty II i IV kvadr):

    1. In situation they are in or situations that are possible positivists focus their thinking on a positive vision of the surrounding world, situations, possibilities, prospects.
    2. In everyday life positivists are inclined to think of positive things that could result from situations as oppose to negative things that could result from them (For example moving is viewed as an opportunity to gain new acquaintances, friends and so on). This results in an optimistic attitude, but not na๏ve and avoidant of reality, possible failure and things that might go wrong.
    3. Positives are better at managing positive situations (when opportunity presents itself). They are inclined to converts negative experiences into positive ones (Find the silver lining).
    4. They speak of the positive more, negative moments they present in a positive background ("Yes, they are grave problems, but..." – and then continues to paint a positive picture). Conversations that are purely negative (Where the other person is stressing the impossibility of things looking up) often irritate positivists.
    5. In the voice of positives one can detect positive intonations. If they are giving other people instructions they present them with "positivity keys" i.e. information on what to do in such situations (For example "You can call them only at a certain time")

    Negativists (Introverts from the I and III quadra, extraverts from the II and IV quadra):
    Negativisty (introverty I i III kvadr, ekstraverty II i IV kvadr):

    1. In situations negativists focus their attention to aspects of the situation that are insufficient, which can be treated as negative foreshortening of prospects, events, situations.
    2. In everyday life negativists are inclined to think of negative things that could result from situations as oppose to positive ones (For example moving means losing establishes supports and so on). Negativists have an attitude of focusing on negative aspects and avoiding them (For instance "positive" development of a situation is due to the fact that nothing bad happened)
    3. Negativists are better at coping with negative, bad experiences. They allocate negative parts of a situation and deal with them.
    4. negativists are more inclined to speak about negative aspects of something. Positive aspects are presented on a negative background ("Well, that is good, but..." – and continues to paint a negative picture). Negativists are irritated by "excessively positive" attitudes (When another person "forgets" to mention or even consider negative aspects of something)
    5. In speech of negativists there are many negative formulations, intonations (Hints, subtext and so on). For example: "Negative experiences are not always necessary, they're not necessary to me" "It will be an occasion to do absolutely nothing" "I cannot say that is true" etc. If giving instructions they focus on things to avoid, what not to do (For example "If you call them at such a time it will be pointless")


    Previous researches into this attitude were generally reduced to measuring positive/negative in the "everyday" sense of the word. In our opinion, these attitudes are a consequence of a deeper mechanism: one group of people perceives properties of a given situation and describes how they pertaining to themselves (Positivists) while the other group distances themselves from them. Positivists describe a subject, individual, phenomenon, attempting to describe it through characteristics inherent in the object, while negativists focus on properties that are not inherent to the object. The surface impression of optimism and pessimism as hallmarks of these two attitudes occurs because of this. In reality both the positivist and negativist can posses these two attitudes and talk equally of things pertaining to either" good" or "bad" things, the difference being in attitude, the form in which they present that stuff (For example "I cannot say that you are not lacking" – negativism, and "You are lacking" – positivism).


    The difference in approaching experiences between positivists and negativists arises because positivists are better at remembering, noticing events occurring because of something happening, when something happening was better, not better, when something happening was inadequate and so on while negativists are better at remembering, noticing when something not occurring was better or not better or insufficient and so on (Generally negativists are better at remembering events that happen because of an absence of something happening and are inclined (Prefer) to draw conclusion from that type of information).


    "In order to trust one must first mistrust" "I always believe in a positive outcome. In that sense I will most likely tell you something relating to a positive outcome. I do not speak of possible failure, why should I bring people down with things that haven't even happened?" "I'm irritated when people only see "mucks" (Inadequacies) in others" "I try not to give instructions, but when in contradiction, I avoid instructions like: Do not go! Do not do! Do not..." "Even a negative experience is positive" "I start off by trusting people and then work from there"

    "my first reaction to everything is "What ever it is I'm sure it's not more important then this"" "I do not speak about good" "One must take into account all the negative possibilities. It goes without saying that people can always surprise you" "If the mood is too good - there is something fishy about it" "In my instructions I always give people "negative" moments. I foresee those negative moments so I try to provide people with awareness of them" " People in general are good, but never the less it's still better to be cautious when dealing with them" "When they write textbooks, mathematical or similar, they always construct proofs "by method of contradiction"" "I often bring bad news" "When asked "How's it going?" I answer "It's all bad"" "Well, if I wanted to enjoy myself I wouldn't go to a restaurant nor a casino...well, most probably somewhere in nature..." "Then there will be a building, but this does not concern you. After that you will see a street leading away from your path, do not go down it, but continue. After that you will go around the next building, there will be two entrances through which you will not go in"


    Tactics (Types with accepting intuitive functions and producing sensor functions):
    Taktiki ("programmnye" intuity i "tvorcheskiye" sensoriki):

    1. They focus their attention on their current situation, on the nearest action, on real time choices - in other words, they focus more on the way an action is unfolding, sequence of events instead of the purpose of that particular action.
    2. They try not to get "bound" to a single state in which they wished to find themselves – in other words, by the purpose they wished to accomplish. As a result of that the direction of their "movement" is fluid.
    3. They are not inclined to constantly evaluate (Reshape, modify) their action in accordance with the end goal (The purpose) in mind. The purpose of their actions is evaluated in accordance to how much it fits current conditions (How much the purpose proposed is compatible with their methods)
    4. All possibilities of events occurring now or those that have occurred in the past (But things that really happened or will happen) i.e. different scenarios, outcomes, are perceived as equivalent (Equally likely to happen and equally likely to have happened).
    5. The emphasis on purpose is never placed or extremely rare (Usually under stress, pressure by circumstances). They avoid to set long-term, global goals (Purposes): "Why plan my life and waste that little time I have for living on planning how to live?".
    6. Tacticians operate with ways of doing things – they often examine and contrast various methods of doing things and determine which method to follow based on criteria (For example it could be a personal preference or optimality or something completely different)
    (I also did this one a little more military style)
    6. Tacticians operate with methods of operation (Execution) – they examine and contrast various methods and ways of executing events, undertaking action and determine which one to undertake on all sorts of criteria (For example it could be a personal preference or optimum efficiency or something completely different)
    7. If the tactician feels that their actions were determined (Controlled) by specific goals (Purpose) then they feel a sensation of worthlessness of their actions (Emptiness of action) and feel disappointment.
    8. Lexicon: in speech of tacticians words "way" "means" "method" can often be heard. They are not inclined to speak of the purpose of action but rather substitute it with other concepts ("necessity" "dream" "interest" "task" and so on)

    Strategists (Types with accepting sensor functions and producing intuitive functions):
    Strategi ("programmnye" sensoriki i "tvorcheskiye" intuity):

    1. They focus their attention on a goal they wish to accomplish, i.e. on the purpose of their actions instead of the actions themselves, on the purpose of events instead of the events themselves and so on.
    2. For the strategists the way, method by which they will accomplish their goals is not of prevailing importance. As a result of that the "trajectory" on which they move towards fulfilling their goals is fluid.
    3. Their actions and choices are estimated from the point of view of how they much they will help them accomplishing their desired objectives (Goals). As a result of that they reject those options that do not fulfill this criterion.
    4. In analyzing past strategists they separate "key moments" (Basic, most significant stages) that lead to present conditions. They do not consider all versions of events unfolding equivalently (They separately examine and focus on those "key moments")
    5. They place a goal (Purpose) in mind and will not deviate from it. They experience confusion if they are forced to deviate from it. They get satisfaction in achieving their set objectives (Goal) and disappointment in failing to carry out the goals they had set (Had in mind).
    6. Strategists operate with purposes (Goals). In a situation where several possible purposes (Goals) exist their hierarchy is established.
    7. Without having a purpose in their life (A goal to guide them) strategists feel as if something is missing, as if they are incomplete. They experience discomfort and often feel disoriented by such states.
    8. Lexicon: in their speech strategists often use the word "purpose" and versions of it. Strategists clearly express goals (Purpose), precisely formulate them and do not substitute them with concepts.


    The key element in understanding this group is the dichotomy of "the purpose (The goal) – the method (The way)". The consciousness of the strategist is to a larger degree orientated towards the purpose itself and not the means by which they will accomplish their goals, while the consciousness of the tactician is largely orientated towards various methods of action, various way it can be done and not the purpose of those actions. This encompasses not only the conscious activities of individuals, which solutions they will implemented and so on, but also external circumstances, background information and other factors determining a situation. On a general level it is possible to speak of a difference in "reference points", either we have purpose as a reference point (Strategist) and methods as variables or the method as a reference point (Tactician) and purposes as variables.


    The disappointment a tactician feels for the achievement of an objective is a result of the fact that in order to fulfill a purpose they had to deviate a way. Being that the way they do something is more important then why in such circumstances (Circumstances in which the purpose is more important and makes them abandon doing something the way they want to do it) the tactician feels uncomfortable. This is accentuated in tacticians - rationales who, by virtue of nature, are inclined to plan their actions, and feel great discomfort if their plans are "spoiled". On the other hand, a feeling of being void, useless and empty comes when "the way" is stopped by fulfilling the objective. The tactician then feels as if the wind was knocked out of their sails. The sensation of confidence, resoluteness accompanying their normal mode of work disappears. Suddenly there is no need for a way anymore. When they were "moving at their own pace", everything was easy and clear. Being unable to "do their way" anymore they often do not know what to do next, how to proceed further.


    "To speak on a global, general level is difficult because is always a local thing that must be addressed" "I do not see something as on a global level, but rather as a collection of local ones" "Long term goals... well I reach them but somehow it all occurs "conveniently" "If I ever get an end goal it would be because I have reached the end myself (Died)! You never know what time will bring (What will be the end goal)" "For each path you take there is more then one place it goes to. Along the way you have time to find out where you are going"
    "My way, for a long time, was clear to me" "There are many things that I could've done, but haven't" "There are a lot of ways my life could've unfolded. I could've lived in different places, could've had other professions" "If I was another person, my life would've been different" "When I look back and think about the things that could've been, I see many crossroads. I can see myself living different lives if I had chosen other paths."

    "The point is not in whether it's an important task or not, the point is in the reason why it's being done. The reason will always be there, the methods may vary... I don't always know how to accomplish what I have in mind" "I was a slave to goals" "A set goal is the center point of self organization. It's a shame that some goals are left unfulfilled, even if they are insignificant... if a goal was drawn you can't really erase it" "A goal is a comforting thought." "I will use a method only if it satisfies the criteria set by the goal I'm trying to accomplish" "There cannot be any "deviation" of a method in usage" "A person must have a purpose in life otherwise – what's the point?" "A huge list - 35 items of what I want to accomplish in my life" "A person cannot always clearly state that what he wishes to accomplish, but nevertheless they accomplish it... minor things I do not look at, I see reasons in bigger things" "There are such moment in ones life, cardinal moments, where one has to make a choice between different paths to take and for myself, if I had chosen another path, the likelihood is that I wouldn't be here talking to you... I always look at what lead to the present" "Every act has a consequence" "There were many "key moments" but the important thing was how they reflected on accomplishing my goal" "I keep track of "key moments"." "I regret that because of lack of experience I couldn't have solved some problems efficiently and because of this the time it took to reach what I had set for myself only increased... but in the end I accomplished what I set for myself, one way or other"


    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.


    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).


    "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"

    "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"

    RIGHT - LEFT (process vs. result, evolyutory vs. involyutory)
    PRAVYE - LEVYE (protsess - rezultat, evolyutory - involyutory)

    (Because this sign was "renamed" by V.Gulenko, a confusion arose. In A.Augustinavichjute [ 2 ] and G.Reinina [ 5 ] this sign is called "left - right" (Leftists are ILE, SEI, EIE, LSI, SEE, ILI, LSE and EII, , rightists - ESE, LII, SLE, IEI, LIE, ESI, IEE and SLI). We utilized in this article the more contemporary "opposite" designations of V.Gulenko and T.Prokofevoy (Leftists are ESE, LII, SLE, IEI, LIE, ESI, IEE and SLI, rightists - ILE, SEI, EIE, LSI, SEE, ILI, LSE and EII). As the names of the attributes do not determine the attributes themselves, the changing of the names is an insignificant detail, but still mentioned in case one encounters opposite classifications)

    Right (process, evolyutory):
    Pravye (protsess, evoljutory):

    1. Rightists feel as if they are a part of a process, they are "immersed" in it. Because of that they have great difficulty managing several tasks at once.
    2. Rightists perceive the process as a whole (Indissoluble). They tend to complete a process in one go, it is hard for them to return to previously started then abandoned projects (To return to the process that was "turned off" and continue where they left off is equivalent to starting anew)
    3. Lexicon: in speech they use the word "process" a lot.

    Left (result, involyutory):
    Levye (rezultat, involjutory):

    1. Leftists place themselves "outside of a process" and disassociate themselves from the process. For them the situation/process is something external. Because of that leftists deal with multiple tasks/affairs much more easily focusing on the beginning and end of each (They with ease govern several processes at one time)
    2. Leftists are inclined to view a process through estimations of it (They "sum up" a process) and are guided/oriented towards the end result, the successful end of a process. They do not notice that something is wrong with the process until it shows up on their estimations of it. This happens because leftists are outside of a process and as such are very bad at noticing the natural flow of the process.
    3. Lexicon: in speech often use words "beginning", "end", "stage", "interval", "result".


    1. The basic difference between the right and the left is in the approach towards situations/processes, or more specifically, the "immersed" and "disassociated" approach when dealing with a process and the orientation on either "the result" or "the process" while neglecting the other aspect. For the leftist the results/estimations (The summing up of the process) are a tool they are forced to use in order to feel the flow of the process (Being that they are disassociated from it). The rightist on the other hand are immersed in the process and do not wish for it to be "terminated" before becoming complete (It's realization).
    2. The hypothesis that perfectionism was a part of the "right" attribute did not find confirmation. Most likely perfectionism is a personal feature and is not connected to the attribute.


    The core/foundation of these attributes is work and attention placement becoming prevailing mental activities. The attributes likely/probably emerge at a level of stability and concentration of attention that is higher then normal (When one has the ability to be concentrated on an object despite interferences). However leftist to a larger degree show an ability to "distribute" their attention in such a state (To simultaneously direct/focus their attention to multiple objects) and to completely "shift" their attention from one object/activity to another.


    "It's not easy to finish something, it's also not easy to start something, but the most difficult thing to do is to continue where I left off a long time ago" "I read the book in the evening to the end of the chapter and a several pages after that…….it's just that the though of an "end" is kina scary for me" "God forbid that I am "left hanging" for a long time (regarding a computer game)" "it's difficult to get it of the ground, but after that it caries itself"

    "The matter at hand must be known. If estimations cannot be complete then they must at least be partial." "I find finishing and undertaking new work/ventures very interesting ... I like to do a well executed job" "the most horrible thing – when something just won't end" "I feel like a juggler; in my hands – activities (Processes). They all have two points – the beginning and the end" "Well why can't you simultaneously listen and eat?"


    Compliant (Extroverts with logic and introverts with ethics):
    Ustupchivye (ekstraverty - logiki i introverty - etiki):

    1. For the compliant inside of their "personal space" (i.e. something that cannot be compromised), which is outlined with a "personal boundary", are personal resources (Time, funds) and interests are manipulated (Are "played" with). An interest is taken only if it can be supported by adequate/corresponding personal resources.
    2. Compliants, while interacting with other people, freely express their interests
    (They freely express their intimate opinions, voice their disagreements, consider counterarguments, share their interests with other people). They divide interests as "my interests" and "those of other people".
    3. The compliant protects their personal resources to a point of conflict, but does not do the same thing with their interests. If a person starts asking/requesting their resources, as they perceive it, intruding into their "personal space", they react by a very sharp reaction which can seem a bit over the edge, aggressive (This reaction is connected with the property of "inviolability" of their resources)

    Obstinate (Extrovert with ethics and introverts with logic):
    Uprjamye (ekstraverty - etiki i introverty - logiki):

    1. For the obstinate into their "personal ("inviolable") space", which is outlined with a "personal boundary", are placed interests and for them resources are manipulated. With the usage of their resources they make opportunities for interests.
    2. The obstinate in interaction with other people freely operates with their resources (They can "share" and "change" them, refurnish them and use/spend them). They divide resources on their resources and other people's resources.
    3. The obstinate guards itself from intrusions into their personal sphere of interests, and do not protect their resources. If a person tries to impose interests on them and thus intrude into their personal space their reaction will be sufficiently deterring/sharp (Such a reaction occurs if other peoples interests do not become the obstinate's interests)


    The keys for this group are the concepts of "personal space", "resources" (What we have available at our disposal) and "personal interests" (Unlike regular interests these are completely personal, actions that we find interesting and feel personal responsibility and attachment to). "Personal space" is something that an individual feels is an integral part of them, it cannot be renounced and will be defended/guarded from claims upon it and intrusions into it by others. For the compliant this space is occupied by their resources while for the obstinate by their interests. As a result of that complaints manipulate interests (Freely change them, adjust them in accordance with their resources) and obstinates resources (They adjust them to their interests).


    "What you do, your affairs/actions, can either be determined by yourself or by other people who will "burden/chain" you with their wishes and requests" "Interests/hobbies in which I cannot participate anymore (Cannot do for one reason or another) eventually become uninteresting and I grow tired of them. I let go of old interests easily" "I limit my affairs, how many things I'm involved with, how many things I am suppose to do. For instance I may find something very interesting to do/get involved with, but I won't pursue the thing" "if I know that I can't do something, I won't and will forget all about it" "If I have an interest it is, naturally, reflected by capabilities. If something is impossible I won't go wasting my time and effort on it. I don't understand people who list all kinds of numerous interests... personally I clearly know what my capabilities are"

    "I never let go of my passions(Interests). But I also won't, because of them, neglect sleep, eating..." "I certainly won't abandon it.... I'm inclined to carry the situation to the end" "I can't let go of my passions for the fear of losing myself, my identity/personality" "My passions (Interests) go the limits of my physical capabilities. When my physical capabilities show me their limits- I will let go of my passions (Interests) but I will do this only as a very last resort... but even then I will not abandon them but I will only "postpone" them and await the moment when I can get back to them. I won't drop/abandon my passions (interests) just because my resources are inadequate..."


    Carelessness (Extraverts with intuition and introverts with sensing):
    Bespechnye (ekstraverty-intuity i introverty-sensoriki):

    1. Careless are inclined to solve any problem, to search for a solution, using only that information which is accessible to them in that given situation (for example, under the conditions of a given task). Therefore careless for each new task make a new "algorithm" in the confines of that given task.
    2. In answers to questions, anything pertaining to the search for the answer/solution (the preparation stage, collection of information, past experience and so on) is never mentioned, but rather it is "implied".
    3: In speech careless often uses the word "provide" as a general concept; in that context they usually speak of that which is "necessary", "good", "it is "impossible" to "provide" everything".

    Farsighted (Introverts with intuition and extraverts with sensing):
    Predusmotritelnye (introverty-intuity i ekstraverty-sensoriki):

    1. When solving problems farsighted scoop information from a wide "pool" of their experiences (When considering/examining a question, they are inclined to use/apply all their experience and knowledge in an attempt to give an answer). Farsighted are inclined to use finished/perfected methods (Algorithms) for solving problems.
    2. When answering questions/inquiries farsighted cover a wide context: they talk about the preliminary stage in the search for the answer, circumstance surrounding the search for the answer, the data available in the search for the answer...
    3. In speech of the farsighted the word "provide" as a concept is quite rare, but in context of actions/plans farsighted demonstrate this concept through concrete examples (The give examples of how something can be provided)

    Examples (On a theme – how do you prepare for a vacation and how do you spend it)

    "I try to reduce the "junk" down to a minimum so I won't have a lot of baggage. After all, you cannot prepare for everything" "I always forget something. I pack clothing, an umbrella, books, maps, a camera, medicine. The books go in quality NZ; I'll deal with entertainment as I go along, there is plenty of interesting stuff out there" "I take the minimum of what is need in order to have a good time/enjoyable stay. Personal hygiene items, medicines, Одежка, бельишко are also necessary. General entertainment one does not provide" "The bare minimum. I'll buy the adequate/convenient footwear, a new bathing suit, I'll plan some trips there, excursions" "One tries to prepare for any situation that could happen. But I cannot prepare for everything that will be expected of me there" "clothes and medicine and other stuff that is necessary to cover our "weak spots". I think about relaxation/leisure when I'm there... certain things come "by default""

    "I'll be taking two things for sure: a bathing suit and a camera. For the rest, you can't always be certain what things will be there, it's better to prepare in advance – when I went to Italy for the first time I hauled along a hair dryer and an iron when the hotel there could've provide me with each.... for the camera it is nevertheless necessary to buy batteries, which can be done before departure" "A safari – and this would not be the first safari I have in Africa. A familiar activity, I know how to adequately prepare myself. It is mandatory to learn at least a little bit of the language. Most of the trip you will be trying to obtain information" "Before departure I always pay my bills so that when I come back no "nasty" surprises will be awaiting me... I first find out what the weather there will be like. It is better to buy all the necessities beforehand, wandering through shops looking for something is time that could've been spent on leisure" "it is necessary to get a passport with a visa and insurance. To solve what to do with the cat" " The tour agencies provides me with answers to most of my questions- if not, I look at cultural information... if there is a stereotype I will look at it also, those are just a couple of things that must also be taken into consideration" ""If it's a coat then it must've been sown by a tailor" "Why?" "Well I presume..." (pause)."" <Farsighted> That remote is the same type I have at home, it won't change the channel" <Careless> Well nevertheless I'll still try it <Farsighted> But why do something in vain?


    Reasonable (I and IV quadra):
    Rassuditelnye (I i IV kvadry):

    1. Reasonable in their natural state are "weakened"; they will try to be maximally mobilized, concentrate only on the state of accomplishing an objective, and after the task is complete, mobilize again. Chronically decreased activity (A lack of mobilization) is the natural state of the reasonable.
    2. For the reasonable it is mandatory that before an important (Crucial) business they stay in their natural state of "slackness" (To rest, take it easy, generally to have low activity) - the better this rest, the better the subsequent mobilization, concentration at crucial moments - their overall performance. The more difficult the task ahead of them the more crucial and necessary the rest before becomes.
    3. A transition from a state of mobilization (high activity) to a state of slackness (low activity) is a natural thing and presents no problem what so ever for the reasonable. However reasonable can experience difficulties while "mobilizing" (Difficulty leaving their natural state). Because of that they often/frequently require special stimulus to get mobilized (They are inclined to put themselves in situations where external factors either force them or decide for them)
    4. Reasonable has a tendency to divide upcoming large matters/businesses into several stages. In their dealings with it they are mobilized while performing each of the separate stages and between them revert to their natural state. Small matters/businesses tend to have only one stage.
    5. They become aware of their state of readiness/mobilization at the moment of beginning consideration of actions i.e. at the most minimal level or mobilization. On the other hand they are badly aware of moments of decision making and often do not remember them.
    6. Reasonable is better aware of and considers more valuable the preparatory stage before actually decision making (Considering, discussing, choosing options and so on) and invest in this stage more time and effort. The stages themselves and performance while executing them is implied and considered less important, they are given less attention.
    7. In regards to their work for the reasonable a certain level of convenience, freedom and comfort is very important. Their place of work (The environment in which they work) they are inclined to estimate from the point of view of how they satisfy the conditions of their performance/work. Reasonable is not inclined to renounce their comfort, convenience, they are not ready to sacrifice their working conditions for the sake of result (For instance a larger pay check) "Well I simply can't do without my peace!"
    8. Speech features: they describe how and why they came to a decision, but do not allocate the moment of decision making; in conversations regarding work they speak of work conditions (Convenience, breaks, proximity to their place of residence and so on)

    Resolute (II and III quadra):
    Reshitelnye (II and III kvadry):

    1. Resolute will often mobilize itself even before this become necessary, as if they are subconsciously preparing for accomplishing upcoming tasks; after accomplishing a task the resolute remains in state of mobilization for some time after that. Readiness is their natural state.
    2. It is necessary for the resolute to stay in their natural sate of mobilization up until the end (termination) of an important affair – the mobilization brings them efficiency and a sense of balance, they have better concentration, address issues on a more deep level, and more saturated/rich will be their rest/leisure ("One does not "stroll" to work – and to take breaks/rest is not desirable")
    3. After the completion of a difficult or prolonged task a transition/exit from the state of mobilization is very complicated (Frequently this is expressed by a "confused" meaningless activity). Therefore the resolute often requires additional, external forces to help accomplish that (For instance a special plan of action "After the test I'll go to the cinema") or turn to other people to help them relax and forget about their affairs/tasks.
    4. Resolute is not inclined to divide upcoming large tasks into separate stages, they will instead stay mobilized for the entire duration of the task so that the task could be accomplished as a whole. As a result of that at times when they are not executing the task they are in a state of internal readiness to continue.
    5. Their state of readiness for action becomes aware at the moment of decision making i.e. when the mobilization reaches a sufficiently high level. Moments of decision making are realized and remembered by them.
    6. Resolute is good at becoming aware of stages of action since they are good at being aware of the moments of decision making, and they invest more time and effort into this what they consider to be the most important part of work (The actual work). They appreciate far less and are far less aware of the preparation stage before the actual work then they appreciate and are aware of decisions and performances.
    7. Resolute is far more inclined to work for the sake of the result (For example, reward) and in contrast to the reasonable, can renounce their comforts, convenience. The place of work is estimated from the point of view of what "fruits" do they get in return for their invested effort (This includes money)
    8. Speech features: they allocate the moments of decision making and in detail speak of stages/states of performances; in conversation regarding work they speak about their "fruits"; in speech the word "money" is often heard


    The radical difference between reasonable and resolute is in the development of the cycle "mobilization – activity - rest" while performing any difficult, critical task. The concept "natural state" does not refer to the natural state of existence of an individual, it concern the starting point in that cycle. The natural state of reasonable – slackness, the natural state of resolute – readiness. People distinguish between these states through contrast, the states next to each other are clearly distinguishable. One is very aware of their state of mobilization (reasonable) and the other their state of rest (resolute) - in a sense that they "exited" their natural state and "by force" were brought to the state they are currently in.


    1. For the sensor resolute mobilization is something they can touch, something physiological, a corporal condition (Mobilization for them is perceived as solid pressure/stress). Intuitive resolute experiences (And accordingly describes) a condition of mobilization more like a state of internal readiness, inspiration and similar things. In a similar fashion relaxation for the sensor reasonable is a physical sensation/condition, an absence of pressure/stress on the body, and for the intuitive reasonable a rhythm where opposite/different states exchange constantly. Thus one can vies slackness as a divergence of attention, and mobilization as convergence of attention.
    2. Resolute view decision accepted by themselves as their own choices and circumstances surrounding the choice as factor in making their choice. Reasonable frequently view their decisions as either something they are compelled to do or have been forced to do.
    3. Reasonable is better then resolute in distributing (Allocating) their energy and estimating their reserves and expenditure while the resolute is better at maintaining a high level of "persistence" for a long time.
    4. Resolute prefer doing a "campaign" method of work – when necessary (For example for a large reward) – for a day, several days, weeks – to work very intensely and then to have lots of free time/rest time. For the reasonable the "campaign" method of work is unnatural, they prefer to have their work be carried out in "small portions".
    5. "_troversion" strengthens the manifestation of the signs: extroversion strengthens resoluteness and introversion strengthens reasonableness.


    "I never prepare the day before a big test in school. I go to take a walk, I read a little form a book" "I don't plan my relaxation, I don't say "I'll be resting till 6 o'clock". Simply all is designed/carried out so that after ten in the evening all will be finished. I spend my evening as usual and why interfere with that?" "If I'm tiered very much – I just rest how much is necessary" "It is impossible to deal with more then one problem for a long period of time, the action has to be postponed for another time" "Dealing with moments of actually making a decision is complicated. They are not kept track of. After the preparatory stage the act of deciding occurs automatically and what happens after does not concern to it. Deciding – itself an action – one can always do this" "Consideration – this is the real work, after which the act of making the decision itself is not important and not kept track of. If it is necessary to do something else... I'll do it but I'll be forcing myself to do it. I get exhausted by such situations" "There is a primary selection: is it necessary or not necessary - and from there things develop. The choices are somehow decided but they are still "unrealized images". But even if they are accepted it does not mean that "the hands can reach them" (They are achievable)" "Consideration is very nice – you still don't have to make a decision. It's even better when you don't have to do a thing afterwards." "Before making a decision there is a lot of consideration done. When the actually moment of deciding on something happened cannot be tracked... the decision is "morphed" - imbedded into the consideration itself – the decision is already virtually made" "When making affairs/business I carefully considered them for a long time. I'm not the kind of person that has a conclusive moment in which they make a final decision" "The main thing in work – freedom of organization, freedom of choice" "The opportunity to recharge is very important, I don't want to burn out" "A necessarily convenient workplace which is solely mine."
    5w4 IEI

    Last edited by snegledmaca on Sat Sep 02, 2006 8:34 pm; edited 1 time in total

    Back to top


    Joined: 11 Sep 2005
    Posts: 641
    Total Words: 60,742
    Location: Split, Croatia
    Posted: Sat Sep 02, 2006 8:33 pm Post subject:


    ""Поднапряжемся" we shall do/make – then we shall rest" "I feel terribly rattled when they try to distract me, to somehow activate/engage me before the actual test. Why? It messes with my concentration, to put it another way, it messes with my "inspiration"" "It happens, at times, that a person gets so tiered that they can't even sleep from the exhaustion" "I was writing my diploma for there straight days, I came home and just collapsed." "I separate my decisions into separate actions they pertain to, any doubts and fluctuations stop at the moment of reaching/making a decision" "I always keep track of what decision I make. Every time you make a decision a burden of responsibilities falls down upon you" "I will not get stuck in the process of consideration... it is concluded with a decision" "If I decided watch a movie, then I will watch it" "Naturally, I remember when I made a decision/choice" "When a person speaks of something – I perceive it as a signal to act even if it is just a suggestion... the decision to act was just the intermediate stage. If I make a decision to act like that it does not mean that I actually will act" "I don't understand – have we solved the problem something or not?" "Work should be interesting but money – it's interesting all on it's own!" "I work for the money, I don't consider leisure a part of it. I work for what they pay me"

    CHEERFULNESS – SERIOUSNESS (subjectivity - objectivism)
    VESELOST – SEREZNOST (subektivizm - obektivizm)

    Cheerful, the subjectivists (I and II quadra):
    Veselye, oni zhe subektivisty (I i II kvadry):

    1. Cheerful are very good at noticing the general emotional background that accompanies contact with people (For example: enthusiasm, fun, stress and so on). Fun (And probably every other emotional experience) for them is allocated into a separate aspect of an activity (They can, for example, to a question on what they were doing answer: "We had fun" – the emotional aspect of the action is allocated)
    2. Cheerful does not perceive "getting to know somebody" as a special kind of activity (in contrast to the serious, for which it is a form of ritual). They know/realize very well why they are getting acquainted (the purpose of this acquaintance – interest, business and so on). In contrast to the serious they do not divide the process of acquainting into consecutive stages. They can immediately establish/determine emotional distance in contact and adapt/regulate it. They overcome boundaries between them and strangers by emotional incandescence (It can either bring them together or move them apart). The "name" behind the person is of secondary relevance, interest is on the person, relations are paramount and so on – therefore they do not count formality as a necessary part of acquaintance.
    3. The subjectivist, in contrast to the objectivist, is not inclined to deduce/derive "objectively accurate" laws and regularities (Summarizing/generalizing for this purpose their experiences and those of other people). Instead assumes that other people have different criteria, different views, therefore defines/treats another's actions as either accurate or incorrect, necessarily doing it with a "subjective" determining factors – evaluates in accordance to a personal system, "their system", actions, intentions and so on. Subjectivist are inclined to propose (Or to impose) not the "correct way" or some other way to do things – but general concepts on how to perform actions i.e. they do not say "Do it this way!" they say "Look at it this way!". They do not consider, in contrast to the objectivist, that in every situation there exists only one "objectively correct/true" way of doing something – in any situation, in their opinion, there are many ways one can act, approach/view the situation. When they feel something was done in an inappropriate manner they will most likely ask: "What is this?" (In contrast to the objectivist who will most likely ask "Who did this?"). When they speak of optimality they speak of optimality within a framework of the concept, they use a subjective approach (Form the point of view of being more optimal compared to what). Therefore they attempt to contrast other people's views to their
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  2. #2
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    United Kingdom
    30 Post(s)
    0 Thread(s)


    CHEERFULNESS - SERIOUSNESS (subjectivity - objectivism)
    VESELOST - SEREZNOST (subektivizm - obektivizm)

    Cheerful, the subjectivists (I and II quadra):
    Veselye, oni zhe subektivisty (I i II kvadry):

    1. Cheerful are very good at noticing the general emotional background that accompanies contact with people (For example: enthusiasm, fun, stress and so on). Fun (And probably every other emotional experience) for them is allocated into a separate aspect of an activity (They can, for example, to a question on what they were doing answer: "We had fun" ? the emotional aspect of the action is allocated)
    2. Cheerful does not perceive "getting to know somebody" as a special kind of activity (in contrast to the serious, for which it is a form of ritual). They know/realize very well why they are getting acquainted (the purpose of this acquaintance ? interest, business and so on). In contrast to the serious they do not divide the process of acquainting into consecutive stages. They can immediately establish/determine emotional distance in contact and adapt/regulate it. They overcome boundaries between them and strangers by emotional incandescence (It can either bring them together or move them apart). The "name" behind the person is of secondary relevance, interest is on the person, relations are paramount and so on ? therefore they do not count formality as a necessary part of acquaintance.
    3. The subjectivist, in contrast to the objectivist, is not inclined to deduce/derive "objectively accurate" laws and regularities (Summarizing/generalizing for this purpose their experiences and those of other people). Instead assumes that other people have different criteria, different views, therefore defines/treats another's actions as either accurate or incorrect, necessarily doing it with a "subjective" determining factors ? evaluates in accordance to a personal system, "their system", actions, intentions and so on. Subjectivist are inclined to propose (Or to impose) not the "correct way" or some other way to do things ? but general concepts on how to perform actions i.e. they do not say "Do it this way!" they say "Look at it this way!". They do not consider, in contrast to the objectivist, that in every situation there exists only one "objectively correct/true" way of doing something ? in any situation, in their opinion, there are many ways one can act, approach/view the situation. When they feel something was done in an inappropriate manner they will most likely ask: "What is this?" (In contrast to the objectivist who will most likely ask "Who did this?"). When they speak of optimality they speak of optimality within a framework of the concept, they use a subjective approach (Form the point of view of being more optimal compared to what). Therefore they attempt to contrast other people's views to their own and to explain their position (To verify concepts): "If it is like that them we shall do this, it is different ? we'll do something else"
    4. "Verification of concepts" - the general (common) phenomenon for subjectivists, it concerns not only the different was of acting/doing, but also concepts, terminology and so on. Subjectivists are in greater degree "adjusted" to the fact that different people have different meanings/understandings for same concepts, words and so on. The perceive the terminology (As well as actions of people) as a part of the subjective concept of different people ? an extenuation of personal opinions, occupied positions, personal intention etc.: "So we have agreed that we shall name it this way". In contrast to he objectivist, who receives terminology as "objective", subjectivists understand the differences of terminologies (This concerns even well established terms) and they attempt to contrast them ("Well you say it is like that but I disagree")
    5. Lexicon: when discussing actions and joint activities they use expressions like "Let me present my point of view" "According to my understanding" "personal criteria" "it matches accepted beliefs" "I have concluded" "they insisted" and so on. They in detail describe verbal communication ? especially their part in it, their "interventions" in the conversations and what they were (Or were not).

    Serious, the objectivists (III and IV kvadry):
    Sereznye, oni zhe obektivisty (III i IV kvadry):

    1. Serious are very bad at noticing the underlining emotional background, they do not perceive the emotional aspect of concepts/actions (for example "fun") separate from the concept/action itself and substitute them with their interpretations, concepts/words that have no direct emotional elements (Instead of the word "fun" they may use "entertainment", "leisure", "pleasure" and so on). They do not perceive the emotional exchange as a separate occurrence, they are inclined to mix it with other matters (They can have fun while working, when they are engaged in serious affairs, "just having fun")
    2. For the serious acquainting with new people is represented by a special ritual necessary for rapprochement with them (If this ritual was not carried out them the serious does not consider themselves acquainted, for example: "We did not introduce ourselves"). In situations of acquaintance for the serious it is easier if the affinity of contact (Emotional distance) is set externally i.e. the degree of emotional distance will be set by some sort of "mediator" (Whether this be a person, situation or something other) which allows to skip the first stage of establishing emotional distance and begin closer dialogue/contact. For overcoming boundaries between them and other people serious create (or they use already existing) "rules" or "rituals" for the step by step rapprochement. They are aware of all the stages of the process of acquainting (When the status changes from "strangers" to acquaintances). For the rapprochement for the serious it is important to know the name, title, any other thing that describes this new person ? therefore formal representation is a very important stage of acquainting.
    3. In objectivists there is an idea of "objectively known facts", regularities, laws in general (common) experience; they consider that there exist "true in general", "always correct" laws. They suppose that other people can have their views, hold their position, but at the same time do not consider that any action can be viewed true or false depending on their point of view (This allows the existence of "objectively accurate" actions). Therefore from the point of view of the objectivists, actions can be different ? subjective, determined by personal preferences and motives, and objective (Where there is only one "correct", "best" way to do something). Objectivists define actions as correct or incorrect contrasting them to their representation of what is "objectively correct". When they think that there is only one optimal solution, they are inclined to propose (Or impose) ways to accomplish an activity (Not propositions on how to accomplish an action like the subjectivist) which they think are the best: "No ? you will do it "the correct way"". When speaking of optimality, they speak of optimality in general ? "objective optimality" (they consider that they know the "correct", "best" ways of doing something). In joint activities they offer the "most effective" way of doing something. In disagreement they first "verify" concepts used, check whether the other person knows the concepts and terms "correctly".
    4. In contrast to the subjectivists, they are not inclined of "verification of concepts". They assume that the terms, concepts have only one unique interpretation ("correct", "accurate" one) ? often they do not think about the fact that the other person may be interpreting them differently within the framework of other concepts. They operate with concepts like "objective reality" like unequivocal facts, in such cases they do not attempt to "verify the concepts": "It refers to this". Thus in those cases they consider that they know a thing correctly, how it "really is" (The view certain pictures of the world as uniquely true): "You say it's like this while in reality is like this".
    5. In description of actions or in discussion of joint activities instead of "explanatory" lexicon they give mass of examples (All "correct" and "incorrect" actions are based on examples)


    During research the hypothesis about the quadra related nature of entertainment has been show to be untrue. Also proven to be untrue was the widespread conviction that people with the serious attribute will not publicly display and behave in a "childish" manner. Probably in the majority of such cases (For example when adult people roll themselves down a hill) it is a typical "situation - intermediary" case, where the boundaries have been established by the intermediary.


    Dichotomy ethics ? logic strengthens the attributes (Ethics strengthens cheerfulness, logic seriousness)


    Cheerful (subjectivists):

    "Fun ? lot's of emotions... company of friends, we exchange news, possibly go have a bite to eat, sing songs" "Fun ? this is involvement, when you actively participate. When you look or read ? these are instructions, fun ? this is active, a state of constant excitement, something one cannot confuse with leisure/rest (a slack state)... perhaps fun for me it is ? exciting contact, dialogue that (As oppose to a fight, quarrel and so on) bonds" "Reading books, opera ? this is not fun... fun ? lots of vitality" "Fun ? a state of liberation where things do not seem serious" "Fun is pleasure, recklessness, everyone participates, dropping of boundaries" "If I'm in a company of new people and we do not introduce ourselves this to me has nothing to so with getting to know each other" "The majority of people with whom I "fray" - I do not know their name" "Anyone can follow established rules on how to engage contact, but it does not mean that you will actually get acquainted" "For me in company of others names are not important" "Only after a weak I remember what his name was even though we had already passionately kissed (About meeting her future husband)" "When I see that someone does something wrong, has problems with something, I first have to check if that is any of my business. If it concerns me, then my first reaction ? to step back and give the proper way to "troubled person"... I have my own ideas on how to do things, "a mind of my own", as should be, but so does everyone else" "First you place the axe, then you explain why you did so" "I have considered what has been stated and conclude that is does concert to the given theme/topic"

    Serious (objectivists):

    "It is difficult for me to differentiate activity/work from fun. Fun... it is difficult to define" "I approach everything seriously, even rest" "It is always possible to find something прикольное in seriousness and vice versa" "To study/work is necessarily fun. Work without an entertainment element is impossible" "What constitutes "fun" ? is not clear, what leisure is ? that is clear, what is entertainment ? that is as well" "It is important that I get introduced when I'm in company of people I never met before, or better yet, that they have been told a little about myself" "I engage other people in the manner suggested to me, I do not engage them if I do not know whether it will be "pleasant"" "I don't like it when other people "thrust" themselves upon me or when it is done on other people: suddenly my aunt, which I'm seeing for the first time, starts calling me her little "sugar-root" or some other thing like "[insert mushy expression here]" and so on." "The name is important, if a person does not say their name it often means that they do not want to have the conversation" "If it is done the wrong way? Oy! It is easier for me to grab it and do it myself then to waste my time explaining. In my opinion there is only one way to "hammer a nail"" "There are things with which it is clearly observable what is ineffective and if there are better ways of doing it. It's very irritating when a person consistently fails to see this and just keeps "hammering the nail backwards"" "When I see something performed "inappropriately" it makes my stomach churn" "It's great punishment when I see something that clearly contradicts common sense and I can do nothing about it. If I can interfere with the situation ? I do, regardless if whether or not if it concerns me" "The methods/ways used by a person that steam from their experience (Are in their framework) ? this is not the same thing as objective methods/ways of doing things (Evidenced by the results)"


    Democrats (I and III quadra):
    Demokraty (I i III kvadry):

    1. Democrat perceives and determines himself primarily through individual/personal qualities. In perception of other people personal qualities of people are primary (In terms of personality: are they interesting, pleasant, unpleasant: their wit, ideas, appearance, tastes etc.). because of this individualism is largely a part of, inherent in democrat "I am I".
    2. They form their relations/attitude toward a person based on their individual/personal characteristics (Authority, intellect, personal achievement etc.). They recognize advantages/qualities people that are independent of their personal/individual qualities. The relation of the democrat to another person will not be based on their belonging to one group or another, or their relations to the representatives of these groups.
    3. They are not inclined to perceive people with which they associate, as representatives of a certain "group of contacts" they have that possess a special quality inherent specifically to people in that group.
    4. Democrat is not inclined to use expressions that generalize "group features" of people (For example, "a typical representative") in their speech.

    Aristocrats (II and IV kvadry):
    Aristokraty (II i IV kvadry):

    1. The aristocrat frequently perceives and defines themselves an other people through group belonging (The division into groups can occur based on almost any criteria: professional, the floor they live on, age, nationality, place of residence etc.), for example: "I'm a representative of..." "This ? from such and such". Colectivism is more inherent in the aristocrat.
    2. Their attitude toward another person forms under the influence of their attitude/relation with the group to which the person belongs. To the aristocrat is incomprehensible how it is possible to belong to two opposing groups at the same time "You are either with us or them ?against us"
    3. Aristocrat separates their "circle of contacts" by a sign, realizes certain "qualities" their friends have.
    4. In speech aristocrat frequently use expressions like "group", "typical representative", "ours", "all [insert group] are [insert quality]", etc.


    1. Most briefly the essence of each of the attributes can be expressed as: a primary collective "we" (Aristocrats) or an individual "I" (Democrats) and corresponding values.
    2. it is possible to notice that the aristocrat is in a larger degree - social, an the democrat ? individualistic. Therefore the dispute of what is more important ? society or the individual, cannot (Shouldn't) be resolved.
    3. From the point of view of social psychologists, the perception of the aristocrat more strongly involves mechanisms of social recognition: casual attribution (The degree of the attributes given depends on uniqueness and social conditionality of behaviour) and effect of the "halo/aura" (It is utilize when the individual doesn't have or has barely any information on a person). Both of them ? are a part of stereotypification (Perception/recognition through a stereotype) [1, with. 128].



    Ethical intuitive types create new groups ("Inhabitants of sleeping areas", "The typical representative of a new generation of goalkeepers") ? summarizing joint/cumulative features I inherent in their majority.
    Logical sensor types use groups which have been created by the ethical intuitivists ? thus being handed over to be processed by their strong logic while already being the basis of a system of personal relations.


    In the core of the democrat, the group is created from individuals drawn together by a common interest, business, idea (For the logical intuitive) or on the basis of mutual sympathy (Ethical sensor). Thus the group is not directly in the core of the democrats basis for constructing a hierarchy in society.

    Influence of this attribute on determination of the type of personality:

    1. Hierarchy and status are frequently described as concepts inherent in structural logic. According to out observations this is entirely false. White logic of the first quadra will adhere to formal requirements, but will not begin to reconstruct all behaviour in accordance to a new order. So will act the aristocrat, as is most obvious in the white logic of the second quadra. The confusion can arise because of this. If we were to observe, we would see that other aristocrats are no less inclined to such "status games", for example "I demand that they relate to me as the director" (EIE), "I cannot associate with those on a higher position then me" (IEE).
    2. Division of people on "one's" and "not one's" is frequently attributed to aristocracy. Actually, that division holds true for anyone with white ethics, including democrats (SEE in particular ESI). If we expand the concept, "one's" ? this is that with which close relations are established, there is a mutual connection or sincere attachment. For the IEE an EII sincere attachment and belonging to a group are combined: "one's" and "not one's" for them means whether they "belong" or do "not belong" to a group.
    3. Switching from "you" to "you (As in "you" but with respect)" is not always significant from the point of view of manifestation of the attributes. According to the standards of etiquette, rules of behaviour, elders it is accepted to address with "you (as in with respect)", and different informal situations, regardless of the rules, switches to "you (plain)". For instance if a child's mother is the child's teacher then if the child call her "you (plain)" in class it will not be an indicator of aristocracy. It is possible to give more example of this. The important thing is not how they are addressed but the reason for doing so.



    "I'm not interested in social belongings of a person or other social hallmarks they may have" "What's in "one's head" does not determine belonging to any group. People are unique." "That? which represents the person/individual is what's important" "When I communicate with somebody it's the same whether they are a man or a woman" "it is difficult to determine in what group somebody belongs, I cannot isolate something that other people do not have" "I am the representative only of ideas" "I can notice groups, but they are not real, the groups are pretend"


    "I perceive people based on belonging to a group, I place everyone on a shelf ("A good mother", "лапочка" ...)" "If it is possible to determine to what group the person belongs, then that it is reassuring. It is easier to perceive the information from the person knowing to what group they belong" "I separate people based on professional capabilities. First: to what social and economic group the person belongs to. Second: the way the conduct themselves, their individual qualities" "to you I come as a typical representative of a translator" "Here, in our work place they hired a new secretary recently and she is everything but a secretary. It's because she comes from the "sleeping" regions... oh no, please don't misunderstand me, I'm not an aristocrat! I'm not!" "For me this religion is nothing, but it is necessary for simple people" "You are my friend, but my friends don't steal toilet paper from McDonalds!"

    Investigation of quadra in relation to attributes

    The concept of a "quadra spirit" or "quara values" can be expressed through finding quadra attributes. So for example a song from 1930: "we shall sing and laugh like children, among persistent struggle and labor" ? composed someone form the second quadra, but not because "the quara spirit dictated it", but because in it are two attributes ? cheerful and resolute ? which in such a combination only exist in the second quadra.


    The results of the research have shown a steady inclination towards the existence of each of Reininas attributes and a precise distribution of types among the dichotomies. The understanding of some attributes in socionics has been substantially improved, built upon and expanded. Some hypotheses regarding the attributes have not found confirmation in this experiment.

    As is shown, similar research can help with creation of objective criteria and reliable methods/tools for defining the socionics type as a personality. Furthermore, simply through Reininas attributes it is possible to path towards the creation a complete, multidimensional model of psyche.

    The experiment carried out was a pilot, it's techniques and conclusion should be statistically confirmed on a large scale experimental group. Nevertheless, already it is possible to speak of a stabile tendency - on the majority of attributes there were practically no exceptions to the theoretical rule, for some attributes a minimal number of exceptions (Around one in ten) were observed. Almost all of those exceptions were connected to behavioral traits acquired through distinctions in education. In display of attributes on a lexic level, in speech and nonverbal communication there were no exception to the rule. For the experiences diagnostician ? соционика (Socionics expert, socionicist) it is possible to track the display/manifestations of the majority of the attributes in a socionics interview.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  3. #3
    Exodus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    329 Post(s)
    0 Thread(s)


    "The results of the research indicate an independent existence of each of Reinin's groups."

    Add this to the list of reasons why Socionics is not a science: one must falsify, not confirm a hypothesis. Assuming they had no preconceived ideas of what the differences described by a dichotomy would actually turn out to be, they could have easily picked any traits that the people shared, and named the dichotomy accordingly. In short, there was no way that the "existence" of Reinin's groups could ever be disputed, in contrast to the above statement. However, the "inverse problem" remark does acknowledge this, and I cannot think of any other way to do the research. Just wanted to clear that up.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts