Effect of rat/irrat vs Ni-Se/Ne-Si preference on behavior

[Exodus]

Do people see what I mean when I say that reasonable/resolute could easily get confused with rational/irrational? (I don't mean getting the concepts confused...I mean the behaviors.)

Look at reasonable: "Natural state is relaxed." "Work best when they can relax beforehand, and are mobilized only for the duration necessary." "Have an easy time going from 'mobilized' to 'relaxed', but not from 'relaxed' to 'mobilized'. Thus, they may need external stimuli to become mobilized."

Doesn't that sound like some of the descriptions in other threads describing Ip temperament? (And BTW doesn't it sound, perhaps, a bit unlike Filatova's description of LII?...but that's not really important, just an aside )

And look at resolute:"Tend to perform an entire task at once" “I will not get stuck in the process of consideration – it always ends in a decision being made.”

Doesn't that sound a bit like some descriptions of rational types? (And, perhaps, also, a bit unlike Filatova's description of IEI?...but again, just an observation...not a big deal.)

It's always this tension between the two interpretations...really, that's it: The roles of resolute/reasonable as vs. rational/irrationality in affecting behavior.

Resolute seems like rational.
Reasonable seems like irrational.

Ah, I see what you mean.

Yes, those descriptions could be easily confused. All that means is that we need better descriptions. Given that both dichotomies exist, it is only a matter of taking inventory of the associated behaviors--much like Reinin did in the first place. They are easily seen IRL. Everything labcoat said, essentially.

[Exodus]

BTW, it's difficult in general to distinguish Reinin dichotomies because they are so numerous. For typing purposes it's wise to stick to the functions and original dichotomies.

[Jonathan]

Yeah, unfortunately, me being a heavy 'judgment' addict, that is the part of the theory I try to avoid at all costs cause it makes my head hurt badly. I say just use the descriptions as stepping stones to an intuitive understanding, then forget about them.

I agree that the Reinin dichtomies are the hardest part to get a handle on, because we don't have much information on where they come from (and if it's all empirical, whom he was observing). But curious: What does the process of using ideas as stepping stones (instead of trying to resolve the contradictions) have to do with being a judging type? Is it because with T as an accepting function (as opposed to creative), an LII may tend not to want to put the spotlight on those sorts of things, in some way?

I'd say a simple solution is that judgment and perception are poorly described terms. Smilex does a good job at wording their descriptions, but beyond his, the descriptions are all MBTI infested.

I agree that Smilex has some good perspectives, but which post of Smilex are you referring to? An early post of his said "Irrationality equals I define object-of-thought. Rationality equals object of thought defines me." I'm not sure I'm any clearer from reading that; in fact, it seems backwards from the way I'd think it should be.

Anyhow, the assertion that Socionics descriptions of rationality/irrationality are MBTI infested is a very common thing said on this forum. But I have a little trouble with that. It seems odd to me that Filatova's descriptions of types, or even Dmitri's articles and Rick's site, would be much influenced by MBTI. The correspondence between descriptions of rationality in Socionics and what would amount to being a dynamic type (J) in MBTI is obvious, as is the correspondence between irrationality in Socionics and what would be a static type (P) in MBTI. But what evidence do you have that those conceptions in Socionics are MBTI-influenced, let alone MBTI-infested? And what would convince you that that part of Socionics is wrong while Reinin dichotomies are right, rather than the other way around?

[Jonathan]

BTW, it's difficult in general to distinguish Reinin dichotomies because they are so numerous. For typing purposes it's wise to stick to the functions and original dichotomies.

I tend to agree; sometimes people get way, way off by using individual Reinin dichotomies as if they were the primary thing, or forgetting that as derived (secondary) qualities, they should not be given as much weight in understanding Socionics as the main dichotomies. Nevertheless, some on this forum have come up with the idea that using Reinin dichotomies en masse, that is look at everyone of them, is actually the best way of typing...I think Expat, for example, tends in that direction, and of course Smilex is a big advocate at looking at all the dichotomies. It's an interesting approach, and may be an interesting contribution of this forum to the field.

And any rate, as Labcoat has pointed out, the merry/serious and resolute/reasonable dichotomies have an important place, because they relate directly to the quadra values idea, which is central in Socionics. At least I find these more promising for understanding quadra values than the "gammas are materialistic and like crude humor" sorts of stereotypes.

[Jonathan]

PS: One thing that can make this whole issue a bit more dramatic is if we translate the bulletted descriptions of the dichotomies into more flowing, vernacular prose...sort of like a type description. Here are my paraphrases of reasonable and resolute:

Reasonables are easy-going, relaxed sorts of people. Much of the time, they appear to be relaxing, or are in their own thoughts. It can sometimes be difficult to get them fired up to get going or accomplish a task that requires effort. However, when they need to, they get into a different mode in which they're like Speedy Gonzales. When they're in that mode, they get everything that needs to be taken care of done quickly, so that they can go back to their more natural state. They tend to break tasks up into smaller tasks, so that they don't have to do everything at once. Hence, if there's a task to do, they'll do a little bit of it, then go to something else. Later, they may come back and finish the original task. They don't believe it's necessary to complete a task "all in one go." They tend to put more mental attention into thinking about how they'll do something than into actually doing it. They love to keep their options open and hate to have to make firm decisions. If they don't have to make a decision on something, they're happy; and they're even happier if after a tentative decision is made, they don't actually have to put in practice, since they don't like to set anything in stone too much.

Resolutes are decisive, on-the-go, action-oriented, get-things-done sorts of people. They're so energized most of the time that they actually need to make a conscious effort to relax. When they start something, by golly they'll finish it completely before moving onto anything else. After they do one thing, they eagerly look for the next thing that they can accomplish and get out of the way. They put most mental thought into the actual actions themselves; however, they don't consider so much the reason for an action in the first place. They would rather act than think about what to do. Everything they do is for some purpose; when working, they're thoughts are on the money they'll make, and hence they can tolerate all kinds of working conditions. Comfort, freedom, and convenience aren't so important to them in their jobs, when compared to making money and achieving goals. Sometimes, they do relax; when they do, it is a conscious effort, likely to be scheduled. Indeed, they can't just relax by virtue of some internal state; rather, they do things to relax: go to a movie, play golf, take a trip somewhere. The idea of being able to just relax anywhere, on the spur of the moment, is foreign to them. Once their scheduled relaxation is up, they go back to action and working again. Most of all, they dislike indecision or too much analysis; they don't like to get stuck discussing what they might do or thinking too much about different options. It is important to them that a clear decision is made; they like closure regarding decisions, so that they can focus on action and getting things done.

[Expat]

Nevertheless, some on this forum have come up with the idea that using Reinin dichotomies en masse, that is look at everyone of them, is actually the best way of typing...I think Expat, for example, tends in that direction, and of course Smilex is a big advocate at looking at all the dichotomies. It's an interesting approach, and may be an interesting contribution of this forum to the field.

A few comments on this --

First, personally I type using everything that it's more visible. In some cases it's the temperament, sometimes it's the quadra, sometimes Reinin dichotomies - however, it's risky to use the dichotomies in isolation. So, I tend in the direction of using dichotomies when they are more visible than the other traits. I don't think that they are the best way of typing. For instance, in a particular moment, depending on how s/he relates to the specific social environment/group, an (say) ESTp will easily more from construct-creating to emotion-creating. You can, however, get a very good glimpse of the likely types if you see how the dichotomies "move together".

Second, something to consider -- do you remember when Kristiina was chaning her opinion on her type, moving from INTj to ENTj when many were saying she was ISFj? She looked at all Reinin dichotomies in a straightforward, yes-or-no way, and they mostly pointed clearly towards Beta NF - which at the time nobody was looking at, and way before she realized she was ENFj. That is a good example of how they can work.

Third, Reinin dichotomies describe individual, specific behavioral traits. The functions behave preferences and motivations. Again, it depends on the situation which of them is more visible.

[Jonathan]

First, personally I type using everything that it's more visible. In some cases it's the temperament, sometimes it's the quadra, sometimes Reinin dichotomies - however, it's risky to use the dichotomies in isolation.

Thanks for the clarification..yeah, I didn't mean to suggest that you were narrowly focused on the Reinin dichotomies....just that you're an advocate for using them as a typing tool, as you described in the case of Kristiina.

The trouble with them for me is how do I know if they're accurate? There seems to be much more written about the functions than about the Reinin stuff. If I understand the descriptions in the Reinin post under articles properly, I guess I would come out ILE (with the possible exception of my 'critical' tendency).

But then again, the way I understand Reasonable/Resolute may not be right. In particular, most people I know who seem to be IEI or ILI don't seem much like my somewhat exaggerated paraphrase of "Resolute" (on the previous page).

In fact, it's interesting to consider IEI vs. LSE in relation to the individual statements regarding Reasonable/Resolute (I've picked the two types that seem most contrary to their inclusion in the dichotomy). Between ILI and LSE, I would think that LSE would think of relaxing as going to a movie or on a vacation, whereas an IEI would be more likely to be able to relax just by daydreaming or petting a cat or something. Also, between the two, I would think that an LSI would want things to be decided and not want to be stuck considering what to do, whereas it would be the IEI who would want to leave options open and not want to have to decide or set things in stone. So, unless all these IEIs are really EIIs, I have some skepticism about how that dichotomy is described.

On the other hand, some classical composers that I tend to think may be Gamma NTs (Shostakovitch, Borodin, Mendelssohn) do have a certain focused energy that I like, which I could also see as being "Resolute," but then I would describe Resolute in a very different way from how it's described on that page.

[Expat]

Compare the IEI and ILI to the SEI and SLI, and the LIE and EIE to the ESE and LSE; then it's clearer.

[Jonathan]

Compare the IEI and ILI to the SEI and SLI, and the LIE and EIE to the ESE and LSE; then it's clearer.

You know, that suggests an interesting idea, which is that all the dichotomies should be viewed hierarchically.

My biggest problem with reasonable/resolute of course has been that it conflicts with the temperaments, in particular making some Ips more "mobilized" than some Eps.

But if you consider that it should only be applied within each temperament, then that's a different matter.

However, in that case, I would think that the description would still need to be tweaked for each temperament. I still have trouble with the wording as-is being applied to IEIs and LSEs in particular.

It would be interesting to come up with an overall heirarchy of all the dichotomies, in terms of the order in which they should typically be applied.

[tcaudilllg]

Johnathan, I'd like to know whether or not you VI strongly with Tony Blair... your statements are a lot a like.

I suspect you are ENTj-ENFp, "Psychological Enterpriser".

[Jonathan]

Johnathan, I'd like to know whether or not you VI strongly with Tony Blair... your statements are a lot a like.

I suspect you are ENTj-ENFp, "Psychological Enterpriser".

I don't think I look like him. Rick VI-d me as a an ILI with possibly some slight SEI tendencies.
I think the Blair character in the movie "The Queen" was a bit more out-going and less pensive than me, although his actions seemed reasonable to me (though that's probably because he was intentionally portrayed as the only fully "sane" character).

[Expat]

But if you consider that it should only be applied within each temperament, then that's a different matter.

However, in that case, I would think that the description would still need to be tweaked for each temperament. I still have trouble with the wording as-is being applied to IEIs and LSEs in particular.

It would be interesting to come up with an overall heirarchy of all the dichotomies, in terms of the order in which they should typically be applied.

I agree with Smilingeyes' interpretation that the Reinin dichotomies have to be seen as "flowing" along the temperaments - that's the only way I see it working.

I think the Blair character in the movie "The Queen" was a bit more out-going and less pensive than me, although his actions seemed reasonable to me (though that's probably because he was intentionally portrayed as the only fully "sane" character).

It's odd that you see that way. The producers certainly did not intend to portray the Queen as not "sane". I think her portrayal in the movie is (1) probably accurate in relation to the real person and (2) a good representation of an ISFj's actions and reactions in a situation of that nature. Blair is portrayed as an ENTj (as I think the real one is), and I suspect that the actor, Michael Sheen, maybe be an ENTj too (his character in Blood Diamond also seemed ENTj-ish.)

If you think that Blair was the only "reasonable" character that would speak for your being Gamma NT but then I don't understand why you didn't understand the Queen's behavior.

[FDG]

Expat I'm disappointed! Didn't you know that all F people are insane?

[Jonathan]

? It's odd that you see that way. The producers certainly did not intend to portray the Queen as not "sane". I think her portrayal in the movie is (1) probably accurate in relation to the real person and (2) a good representation of an ISFj's actions and reactions in a situation of that nature. Blair is portrayed as an ENTj (as I think the real one is), and I suspect that the actor, Michael Sheen, maybe be an ENTj too (his character in Blood Diamond also seemed ENTj-ish.)

If you think that Blair was the only "reasonable" character that would speak for your being Gamma NT but then I don't understand why you didn't understand the Queen's behavior.

Well, okay; I may have exaggerated a little. The Queen came off as a reasonable, sincere, dignified, and realistic character, although it did take her awhile to process things. However, Blair came off as making more sense than anyone else, and I thought that was the writers' intention.

[Expat]

Well, okay; I may have exaggerated a little. The Queen came off as a reasonable, sincere, dignified, and realistic character, although it did take her awhile to process things. However, Blair came off as making more sense than anyone else, and I thought that was the writers' intention.

I think that the writers' intention was just to portray what happened as accurately as possible (or as plausibly as possible, where they lacked first-hand reports). I don't think they had any agenda to make Blair more sensible than the others.

[Jonathan]

Well, okay; I may have exaggerated a little. The Queen came off as a reasonable, sincere, dignified, and realistic character, although it did take her awhile to process things. However, Blair came off as making more sense than anyone else, and I thought that was the writers' intention.

I think that the writers' intention was just to portray what happened as accurately as possible (or as plausibly as possible, where they lacked first-hand reports). I don't think they had any agenda to make Blair more sensible than the others.

I guess there's no way to know without interviewing him/her/them. I make the assumption that a historical writer chooses the situation (out of all possible things to write about) to reflect an inner truth that already exists independently. It could also be that the writer starts with the situation and only discovers its inner meaning in the course of working on it.