Typing by Reinin dichotomies

[Expat]

Just a few comments on this issue.

First - as in anything else in Socionics - nobody is going to behave according to Reinin dichotomies all the time. Nobody is going to be consistently, say, Taciturn or Narrator all the time. This is obvious, but it is worth stating again.

Second, in my opinion and observations, the most correct interpretation of how Reinin dichotomies really work is that put forward by Smilingeyes especially in his behavioral tracker - they are more or less fluid along the temperaments. Especially the Narrator/Taciturn, Process/Result, Negativist/Positivist are very fluid. It is more useful to see how they "move together". So for instance, if someone very often displays the Negativist-Narrator behavior that is most typically associated to INTps, that is a good indication that that someone is an IP or EP, since in those temperaments that's where that combination happens, and probably not an IJ or EJ. In the absence of any other information, it would be rash to be more specific than that.

Third, Reinin dichotomies are a tricky thing. It's easy to see in yourself the behavior of any of them. So if you want to use them for typing, you have not only to be totally "relaxed" as to which ones you "want" to see but also understand them well.

To use again another example I keep referring to -- when Kristiina thought she was ENTj and many were arguing that she was ISFj or ESFp or even ISTj, she used the Reinin dichotomies in a straightforward, yes-or-no way. As a whole, they pointed out to Beta NF, the correct answer, much earlier than any other method. That happened because Kristiina wasn't too concerned about the results going one way or the other.

But if you are already trying to prove this or that type, they are much more sensitive than other Socionics points to the Forer effect.

Someone very skilled in them - I would only include Smilingeyes in that, not even myself - can use them well to type others, by observing their behavior when they are being "themselves".

And this is not an argument I have just adopted I have held these views for quite some time.

[machintruc]

But if you are already trying to prove this or that type, they are much more sensitive than other Socionics points to the Forer effect.

Basically, this is because we lack strict definitions for Reinin's traits, like those from Rick ; so one may not use Reinin typing seriously, as I first did.

[Joy]

I think a lot of people misunderstand what they are based on their names. The best example I can think of is the Compliant/Obstinate dichotomy.

[Expat]

I think a lot of people misunderstand what they are based on their names. The best example I can think of is the Compliant/Obstinate dichotomy.

Yeah. And the Construct-creating & Emotion-creating.

[Mea]

Umm. I think I used to misunderstand positivist vs negativist.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

But is it trying to say that positivists phrase things in a positive sounding manner like:
This is good. / You're doing this right.
Whereas negativists would say something like:
This is not bad. / What you're doing is not wrong.

??

[anndelise]

Umm. I think I used to misunderstand positivist vs negativist.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

But is it trying to say that positivists phrase things in a positive sounding manner like:
This is good. / You're doing this right.
Whereas negativists would say something like:
This is not bad. / What you're doing is not wrong.

??

positivist can also say negative things as if it's positively true.
negativists can say positive things in a "not quite sure" way.

I wrote this in another thread:

another thing about positivism is that even negative things can be stated in a positivist way.
ie 'you are untrustworthy until you prove your trustworthiness' is a positivist statement
'i'm not sure if you are trustworthy or not, i haven't really known you for long, and we haven't really interacted much, for all i know you could be trustworthy, but then for all i know you could be an ax murder, i'll reserve judgement until you prove yourself one way or the other....though even then I might not be completely sure' is a negativst statement

(it's possible that 'are you trustworthy?' or 'what, you don't think i'm trustworthy?' could be used as taciturn examples)

notice the "you are" (positivist) vs the "i'm not sure if you are" (negativist)

[Mea]

Umm. I think I used to misunderstand positivist vs negativist.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

But is it trying to say that positivists phrase things in a positive sounding manner like:
This is good. / You're doing this right.
Whereas negativists would say something like:
This is not bad. / What you're doing is not wrong.

??

positivist can also say negative things as if it's positively true.
negativists can say positive things in a "not quite sure" way.

I wrote this in another thread:

another thing about positivism is that even negative things can be stated in a positivist way.
ie 'you are untrustworthy until you prove your trustworthiness' is a positivist statement
'i'm not sure if you are trustworthy or not, i haven't really known you for long, and we haven't really interacted much, for all i know you could be trustworthy, but then for all i know you could be an ax murder, i'll reserve judgement until you prove yourself one way or the other....though even then I might not be completely sure' is a negativst statement

(it's possible that 'are you trustworthy?' or 'what, you don't think i'm trustworthy?' could be used as taciturn examples)

notice the "you are" (positivist) vs the "i'm not sure if you are" (negativist)

Ahh.. I see. Now I know why ENFps are generally considered negativists.
Hmm, thanks.

[Expat]

Something else -- especially for those trying to look at Reinin dichotomies but not looking into Socionics theory.

Whatever "mathematical explanations" are used, to talk about things like Aristocracy/Democracy or Constructivist/Emotivism can only mean one of the alternatives:

1) Reinin observed such characteristics in real people, and attributed them to type (or quadra etc) according to how he had previously typed such people
2) he deduced such characteristics from the functional analysis of the types (like - + = aristocracy, an approach that would look like Smilingeyes' mathematico-mechanical Socionics
3) a combination of the two.

I haven't read Reinin's full papers (because I could not find them), but reading the description of the dichotomies I get the feeling that he did observe them first in real people and then tried to explain - some of them - according to functional analysis - the "hypotheses" bit in the descriptions.

Which then leads to the question --

How did Reinin type the individuals he observed? He had to, in order to say that, for instance, some types were Narrator or Taciturn.

Did he type his - sample - of individuals according to model A & quadra functional analysis?

Or did he type that sample according to type descriptions? If so, whose? Filatova's? Gulenko's? Meged's? Stratyiveskaya's? Or according to his own personal criteria for typing?

Does anyone know the answer? I don't. Perhaps someone does, in this case, I'd be grateful to hear it.

The point is -- when Reinin says that, say, LIEs are among the "Emotion-creating" and "Compliant" types, did he actually observe a significant number of individuals whom he had typed as LIE to validate that conclusion? I don't know. If he did do that, how did he type those individuals as LIE - according to whose, or which, criteria? I don't know.

So, how do we know that those "LIE"s (or ILIs, or IEIs, or ESEs, or whatever) were correctly typed? We don't. Not as far as I know.

So, Reinin's dichotomies - like Filatova's descriptions, or Stratiyeveskaya's, or Gulenko's - did not come from the sky as some sort of "divine revelation". All of them are based on the premise that those socionists did type those people correctly - but we don't know (or at least I don't) how they typed them.

My general point is -- it is the ultimate in foolishness to to expect that all of those factors have to fit together perfectly in an objective way. There is no objective way to measure with precision whether someone behaves 51% of the time as Constructivist or Emotivist, or 60%, or whatever.

The only thing to do is to understand the Reinin dichotomies - as well as the rest of Socionics theory - as best as you can for yourself, and see whether it seems to work in practice, and if other people generally agree so you're not the only lunatic But there is no way to know all of that for sure, except having direct access to the individuals that Reinin used for his dichotomies - which is not likely to happen.