why don't some reinin dichotomies match or fit together?

[Zero]

for example, why can't someone be a static+ positivist+tactical+asking+emotivist?

you can see how they fit here: http://www.zhilkin.com/socio/en/

is there something in the description of one or more of the dichotomies that doesn't match the rest? like how you can't be a couch potato and athletic at the same time in the Sims game!
but what is it? why? maybe there is someone who has those dichotomies at once and is therefore struggling to be typed?
but then there would be 1307674e12 (15!) different types.. umm...?!

[Lao Tzunami]

There are 15 type dichotomies. Combining any two of these dichotomies creates a small group, such as quadra, temperament or club. Every small group is defined by 3 dichotomies and by selecting two traits, you select the small group and imply what the third trait must be.

For example, the Linear Assertive temperament consist of the four types that are extroverted, rational and dynamic: LIE, EIE, LSE, ESE. I can refer to this temperament as extroverted + rational types, extroverted + dynamic types or rational + dynamic types. Either way, I am always talking about the Ej temperament, and by extension, the third trait I did not use.

Since these three traits are dependent on each other, you can create impossible combinations. If all extroverted + rational types are dynamic, then there are no types that are say, extroverted + rational + static. You can use this property as a parity check and check for errors.

for example, why can't someone be a static+ positivist+tactical+asking+emotivist?

The only type that is static+ positivist+tactical+asking is ILE. ILE is a constructivist, not an emotivist. That's why that type combination doesn't work. Not that we know this person is ILE. All dichotomies being equally reliable, ILE, SEE, IEI and LSI are all the most likely.

I have an excel program I made showing this structure if you are a visual person.

[Zero]

The only type that is static+ positivist+tactical+asking is ILE. ILE is a constructivist, not an emotivist. That's why that type combination doesn't work.

I have an excel program I made showing this structure if you are a visual person.

when you mention Te and being dynamic, that is understandable but some other combinations don't match and a why is not explained.
is there like a link that explains "why Te is dynamic" "why Ni+Fe makes one an aristocrat but Ni+Te makes one a democrat" . If Fe makes IEI an aristocrat then why is SEI a democrat?

[Lao Tzunami]

when you mention Te and being dynamic, that is understandable but some other combinations don't match and a why is not explained.
is there like a link that explains "why Te is dynamic" "why Ni+Fe makes one an aristocrat but Ni+Te makes one a democrat" . If Fe makes IEI an aristocrat then why is SEI a democrat?

The aristocrat - democrat dichotomy is the third club dichotomy, the other two being intuition - sensing and logic - ethics. You seem to be thinking in terms of information metabolism which is perfectly fine, but makes things a little more complicated. Intuition - sensing defines what irrational element is strong and weak while logic - ethics defines which rational element is strong and weak. The aristocratic - democratic dichotomy does not position any element directly in model A. It might attach a +/- charge to the 8 elements, but there are so many conflicting theories about charges at the moment, I don't know if any of them are reliable.

[Zero]

Can you give me a specific example?

for example we can't have someone who is negativist+strategic+obstinate+farsighted and is an aristocrat. why? I know the facts, just don't understand why

[Zero]

I just used the word "why" 9 times

[Zero]

The aristocrat - democrat dichotomy is the third club dichotomy, the other two being intuition - sensing and logic - ethics. You seem to be thinking in terms of information metabolism which is perfectly fine, but makes thinks a little more complicated. Intuition - sensing defines what irrational element is strong and weak while logic - ethics defines which rational element is strong and weak. The aristocratic - democratic dichotomy does not position any element directly in model A. It might attach a +/- charge to the 8 elements, but there are so many conflicting theories about charges at the moment, I don't know if any of them are reliable.

I'm just trying to understand things on a deeper level that is why I am thinking in terms of information metabolism, thank you for the info, I know how things work but just not deeply explained. just how some parts of intertype relations aren't explained. this is this and that is that, there is no why answered . you know the idea of a bullshit detector is very important specially in terms of personality theories, and what you say about conflicting theories about charges I also agree with, it should have a thread of it's own how many conflicting theories there are. I would really appreciate someone looking specifically for them and writing a paper about it.

[Lao Tzunami]

for example we can't have someone who is negativist+strategic+obstinate+farsighted and is an aristocrat. why? I know the facts, just don't understand why

The simple answer is the reinin dichotomies were first groups of types that were generated mathematically, and only later assigned empirical meaning. That group doesn't work because no type fits those constraints. However, you may possibly meet someone with those actual traits because the reinin dichotomies are still being developed and maybe a few of them don't have reliable definitions. This is why the are controversial and open to debate.

[Zero]

However, you may possibly meet someone with those actual traits because the reinin dichotomies are still being developed and maybe a few of them don't have reliable definitions. This is why the are controversial and open to debate.

yes and that is bugging me

[Lao Tzunami]

what you say about conflicting theories about charges I also agree with, it should have a thread of it's own how many conflicting theories there are. I would really appreciate someone looking specifically for them and writing a paper about it.

I am writing a paper on the dichotomies which you can read here [link]

And I also made a wikisocion page with all the different small groups I know of [link]

Hope it helps

[Saoirse]

for example, why can't someone be a static+ positivist+tactical+asking+emotivist?

you can see how they fit here: http://www.zhilkin.com/socio/en/

is there something in the description of one or more of the dichotomies that doesn't match the rest? like how you can't be a couch potato and athletic at the same time in the Sims game!
but what is it? why? maybe there is someone who has those dichotomies at once and is therefore struggling to be typed?
but then there would be 1307674e12 (15!) different types.. umm...?!

I really like this question. I don't know the dichotomies well, so I unbiasedly (in the sense of not being able to try to make myself get a specific type or support/refute the dichotomies) clicked the three Reinin traits that I thought were most clearly true for me according to the descriptions in the linked website--rational, result-oriented, yielding. I was narrowed down to Jack or Dreiser! Then adding any of the quadric traits that describe me--reasonable, subjective, or aristocratic--made me no type. Also just clicking all three of those quadric traits makes me no type.

The simple answer is the reinin dichotomies were first groups of types that were generated mathematically, and only later assigned empirical meaning. That group doesn't work because no type fits those constraints. However, you may possibly meet someone with those actual traits because the reinin dichotomies are still being developed and maybe a few of them don't have reliable definitions. This is why the are controversial and open to debate.

I didn't know the dichotomies were generated mathematically. How did this process work exactly? Do you know a good article about it?

I guess the impossibility of certain Reinin trait combinations is similar to the impossibility of certain IE dimensionality combinations. Like no one can have a 4D feeling IE but also a 3D or 4D thinking IE. There's no a priori reason that this must be true, but it is. The basic components in our brain that give rise to the dichotomies and IE strengths seem to be like those puzzle toys where when you move one piece, it moves other pieces. They're not just switches lined up in a row that you can individually, independently turn off or on.

Then perhaps the reason we cannot see why certain Reinin trait combinations or IE dimensionality combinations should logically be impossible is that the Reinin traits and IEs are not the most basic components yet--there is still something more fundamental that we have not yet stumbled upon, perhaps because it lies more in the field of neurology than psychology.

[Bertrand]

you have to understand how Ti works in the first place to really understand how a experimental conceptual framework of this kind is created, which is to say they take a thing and split it in half and assign semantic coordinates to each half that allows them to now determine their location to a certain degree in relation to the thing. they can do this multiple times forming axes such that you can create x and y and z and t coordinates along any phenomenon. in this way they "grid out" a conceptual understanding of a thing. at its most basic, when there's not much else to go off of, on/off are the coordinates. so they took cognitive function and divided it into phenomenological experience, which was thinking, feeling, intuition, and sensing. then they sub divided it into introverted/extroverted. this was all based on introspection and observation. what defined the content of these semantic notions was the phenomenological experience of them, which means the "what is was like to feel/think/sense/intuit" etc.

so now you have 8 categories and they were defined in terms of when an introverted function is active it cannot simultaneously also be activated in an extroverted capacity, at the very least it has to switch back and forth in time. the same thing goes for thinking/feeling and sensing/intuition

the way socionics was developed was the "dual nature of man" was posited, which was another way to divide, a priori, man into 2, which created the basis for the 16 types. because most people think of duality as something that came after their understanding of MBTI they dont realize it is actually the foundation of socionics, not something added afterward. the idea is everyone has conscious and subconscious valued and unvalued functions, which is a further division based on observation, but the idea is that for every type there is their dual, which is the "other half" in other words no individual human can be strong in both 4d feeling and thinking because humans by definition are split into 2 parts between a dyad, by definition. that is the a priori assumption underlying socionics. that you aren't strong at it all and that the phenomenon of duality is the evidence of that and was inferred from observation then formulated into an axiom which served as the basis for the formal Ti axiom that grounds socionics

fuck I just reread this and its a mess, let me see if I can restate things more clearly. the basis for any Ti structural understanding of a thing is rooted in a binary system: on/off. they took Jung's cognitive functions t/f/s/i x2 via e/introversion and then observed the phenomenon of duality, from which they inferred the fundamental axiom of socionics which is that you cannot be good at everything at once, rather your abilities are evenly split between 2 types (you dual). thus the simplest answer to the question is dimensionality of functions is by definition something that you can only be good at precisely half of the total

reinin dichotomies are derived from the idea that you apply certain formulas that are actually quite simple and are really just variations on how to slice numbers (6 or "half dozen" or 3 x 2, etc), and then they assigned descriptions to what those numbers represented. in other words they took something like sensing + logic in valued blocks (ego or superid) and said hey, we see "aristocratism" as a consistent pattern emerging from those factors we divided up. the reason you cant be both aristocratic and say negativist and decisive and emotivist essentially boils down why you cannot define 10 as (3+3+3+3) it entails a downrange contradiction

duality has religious connotations even though not everyone is aware of it, precisely because God is a symbol of unification and duality is a form of unification. "differentiation" is precondition (or even better, synonymous) to "personality" so at its most basic "personality" is the idea that you cant be good at it all. duality is just an elaboration on the idea via Ti which splits things in 2 in order to make sense of it. this is why there is religious significance to the idea of analytic psychology and why Jung is considered perhaps the greatest 20th century thinker, because he managed to provide a basis for bridging the gap between spiritual and scientific, which had only been widening since the enlightenment

tl;dr: its all definitional

[Zero]

thus the simplest answer to the question is dimensionality of functions is by definition something that you can only be good at precisely half of the total

I didn't mean being for example both negativist and positivist, that is understandable that one can't be good at both, I meant the underlying reasoning for the dichotomies is not clearly explained in some cases. and that is a flaw for a theory as good as socionics. overall the fact that there are contradictions in it make it scattered, at least for a person who is not russian and reads about socionics on the internet. if it was less scattered it could have been more widely and more professionally used, than for example say typing celebrities.

reinin dichotomies are derived from the idea that you apply certain formulas that are actually quite simple and are really just variations on how to slice numbers (6 or "half dozen" or 3 x 2, etc), and then they assigned descriptions to what those numbers represented. in other words they took something like sensing + logic in valued blocks (ego or superid) and said hey, we see "aristocratism" as a consistent pattern emerging from those factors we divided up. the reason you cant be both aristocratic and say negativist and decisive and emotivist essentially boils down why you cannot define 10 as (3+3+3+3) it entails a downrange contradiction

do you know of a good article which explains how reinin dichotomies were invented?
and that sounds a bit silly, to find a pattern randomly and then generate numbers for it..humans just don't work that way

[Bertrand]

you'd be surprised what this method can do, this is how they discovered planets before they could observe them

[Singu]

I don't think there's a clear explanation on exactly "why" those dichotomies, basically you can make any shit up. Hell, even Model A is based on an assumption about how the mind supposedly works...

I think you can look at how the Reinin dichotomies were derived here:

http://wikisocion.net/en/index.php?t...es#Mathematics

[Lao Tzunami]

@Zero , I can explain how you can generate the reinin dichotomies if you'd like to try it out yourself.

[PrettySavage]

@Zero , I can explain how you can generate the reinin dichotomies if you'd like to try it out yourself.

I was butting heads over the merit and validity of dichotomies dichotomies just now, so I'm butting in and asking for the explanation, please.

[Simo]

when you mention Te and being dynamic, that is understandable but some other combinations don't match and a why is not explained.
is there like a link that explains "why Te is dynamic" "why Ni+Fe makes one an aristocrat but Ni+Te makes one a democrat" . If Fe makes IEI an aristocrat then why is SEI a democrat?

Reinin dichotomies are based of combinations of jungian dichotomies (E/I, N/S, T/F, P/J) not on information elements so it is not Fe that makes IEI an aristocrat but it is being NF so other NF types (EIE, IEE, EII) are also aristocrats

what reinin is trying to say is when you combine two or more jungian dichotomy you get a new dichotomy so NF is different from NT so he went to observe what is shared between NF types but is different in NT types so he came up with aristocrat vs democrat, the question is does this new dichotomy actually differentiate NF vs NT or is it related to something else for example NP vs NJ? logically NF & NT should be different but did reinin do a good job defining the difference? I didn't read anything that prove him right or wrong so far

so if you think you have a reinin combination that doesn't fit any type then maybe it is because one of those dichotomies is defined incorrectly, but it can also be because you didn't really understand the dichotomy the way it was intended by the reinin himself

[Simo]

I just used the word "why" 9 times

maybe you aren't Ti-ignoring then

[PrettySavage]

so if you think you have a reinin combination that doesn't fit any type then maybe it is because one of those dichotomies is defined incorrectly, but it can also be because you didn't really understand the dichotomy the way it was intended by the reinin himself

Do you think there's a better alternative than the Wiki explanation of their meaning?

[Aylen]

Do you think there's a better alternative than the Wiki explanation of their meaning?

The Reinin book is available for download here if anyone wants to read it. It is very, colorful, which didn't bother me but some might not like it. You can always change the color.

I read the whole thing which is basically his type descriptions and a history of socionics from his perspective. I think some of it is good and some is off. I think at first I felt a bit offended by his examples but it was due to a forum member presenting it a certain way putting their own spin on it. Aftering reading it myself I could see what he was getting at in a more general way. I mean who really wants to be portrayed as easily led so I had a bit of a gut reaction to the suggestion but after consideration I can say he was correct in a more general sense. I never liked the IEI descriptions that suggested they are "tag-alongs" but it is the word itself that was a bit offensive not the general idea since it can be true. I don't know if that came from Reinin but after reading the book I assume it was influenced by him.

1. The good-natured tag-along who likes to be attached to groups and provides constant comic relief.

From Reinin:

Function #4– objective sensoring (): suggestible function. Activity, motion. “Others ought to tell me what I should do. A good place is the place where there is action, movement, where work gets done". There are times when she finds herself on her way some place or sitting by a campfire. It is as if she was "inserted" in unplanned circumstances. She could not resist the external influence. “They took me with them, so I went along. I have no will of my own.” This type should be attentive to their choices. Do these things correspond to the goals of my life? Will they take me there where I want to be? A Tutankhamon may seek to escape later when she realizes that it is not where she wants to be. It is too late though; people reap what they sow. On the one hand she is in slavery to other people, and on the other hand she is a skilled manipulator of the external relationships. When a Tutankhamon realizes what she is reaping, instead of repenting she resorts to harassing the people who got her involved and looks for ways to get out of the mess, produced by her irresponsibility, using the strengths of her type.

At least he offers some advice. I am an advocate of making more conscious choices and not just falling in with a group because I let myself be carried away. I do have a will of my own and I can say no but, tbh, a lot of it was fun, even if it got me into a lot of trouble. I can relate to the part I put in red. Getting myself out of tricky situations has been a skill that I didn't appreciate enough when I was younger. I am just more aware and make more conscious choices now. I felt put off by the whole thing when I first read it similar to when I read E4 descriptions. It made me take a good look at myself and by doing that I felt more freedom.


http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...-Reinin-s-Book

[Zero]

maybe you aren't Ti-ignoring then

since I am suspicious about socionics, "why" is always an important question to measure the degree of "factuality", I don't have doubts about being LIE but one of the questions I most frequently ask is "why" not to systematize the information, but simply to understand intentions in order to offer a better and more efficient way of doing things, which will exceed those expectations as well.

what you said about NT,SF democrat vs NF,ST aristocrat, you have a point in there, and I know that you are very fund of Jung. It is a point to note but still not the answer I think.

[Zero]

@Zero , I can explain how you can generate the reinin dichotomies if you'd like to try it out yourself.

generate dichotomies?? I got curious

[Zero]

@Aylen thanks for the book, just ignore this part of personality theories, it is ridiculous, is Julian Assange a "good-natured tag along"? I think not

[Aylen]

@Aylen thanks for the book, just ignore this part of personality theories, it is ridiculous, is Julian Assange a "good-natured tag along"? I think not

I had a hard time seeing myself as a Tag-along since I can take a leadership role when I have or want to, even if I am funny sometimes. I think it is easy for some to see it that way when they are unaware of underlying dynamics. I would say my IEI brother is often offering more comic relief than I am. I didn't realize Assange was typed IEI but I don't know much about him other than the crimes he is accused of.

[PrettySavage]

The Reinin book is available for download here if anyone wants to read it. It is very, colorful, which didn't bother me but some might not like it. You can always change the color.

I read the whole thing which is basically his type descriptions and a history of socionics from his perspective. I think some of it is good and some is off. I think at first I felt a bit offended by his examples but it was due to a forum member presenting it a certain way putting their own spin on it. Aftering reading it myself I could see what he was getting at in a more general way. I mean who really wants to be portrayed as easily led so I had a bit of a gut reaction to the suggestion but after consideration I can say he was correct in a more general sense. I never liked the IEI descriptions that suggested they are "tag-alongs" but it is the word itself that was a bit offensive not the general idea since it can be true. I don't know if that came from Reinin but after reading the book I assume it was influenced by him.



From Reinin:



At least he offers some advice. I am an advocate of making more conscious choices and not just falling in with a group because I let myself be carried away. I do have a will of my own and I can say no but, tbh, a lot of it was fun, even if it got me into a lot of trouble. I can relate to the part I put in red. Getting myself out of tricky situations has been a skill that I didn't appreciate enough when I was younger. I am just more aware and make more conscious choices now. I felt put off by the whole thing when I first read it similar to when I read E4 descriptions. It made me take a good look at myself and by doing that I felt more freedom.


http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...-Reinin-s-Book

Thanks for the link, I've read it about twice already but I'll give it another (last) chance. I'll say this: when he gets a type right he gets it really right, when he doesn't I mean if I was to depend on him to figuring out my type I'd still be in the dark, neither of the potential ones would fit me as described by him. The man liked his hyperbole and melodrama, sometimes I wonder if he even was interested in real people.

[FDG]

They can practically exist, but they would be a new socionics type.
You'd then have to create relationships with all the other socionics types for this type, and since it'd be impossible due to the "uneveness" of the system, you'd have to basically create another typing ystem.

So WHY is it impossible in socionics? Because if you do it you are forced to create a new system.

[PrettySavage]

Ok so I don't know where to ask this, if there's a proper thread for general questions please tell me and I'll move it.

When I was first trying to understand the Model A setup, I saw these two tables being passed around on PerC:




Now the first says we are prone to overuse the Lead and Creative functions, the second says that's impossible. One calls the Vulnerable a "second Creative" and claims we mock the demonstrative while the other says we have confident mastery over it. Their definition of what the Role and Mobilizing functions are completely different...where is this info coming from? Isn't there a unique official breakdown of each Model A information aspects ? I notice the Wiki page on it is frequently edited.

[Bertrand]

its impossible to overuse them in the sense that you can't burn out energetically (or if you do it goes to other functions supporting them that knock the slats out from under you), not that they are literally "the solution to everything" so you can overuse them in that sense. its the difference between sustainability and usefulness. demonstrative is often used in a "mocking" capacity; example: when I was in the Army I'd give briefings to the BN XO (a major) in front of the colonel. A lot of times he'd quiz me trying to stump me in front of everyone, saying "what about this what about this etc" it was Ne. So I would start to answer his questions and carry the line of reasoning until I'd be saying absurd stuff like "and if an alien starship lands in the middle of our convoy we will stop, form a perimeter, and call cheyenne mountain" which would get him off my back etc. If you're creative Te and you're in the presence of ridiculous Ti you might start to engineer paradoxes just to throw it back at them or stuff like that

[Singu]

Well I think the reason why you can't have a type with those traits, is basically because of "maths". The math is set up so that you will have a certain exact kind of dichotomies within each types and its mirrors. "Why" they picked those dichotomies seem pretty arbitrary, though.

Static: IJ/EP
Positivist: INF/ENT, ESF/IST
Tactical: NP/SJ
Asking: ENTP/INTJ, ENFJ/INFP, ESFP/ISFJ, ESTJ/ISTP
Emotivist: TJ/FP

Ok, so the "Asking/Declaring" dichotomy seems to be the most arbitrary and ridiculous. Basically it's saying that "It's Asking because ENTP (and its mirror)". There's not much rhyme or reason to it other than that. But you can say the same for any other dichotomies.

Mathematically, yeah, you will always have a certain type with a certain combination of dichotomies, but the definitions of those dichotomies and hence the traits can be completely arbitrary.

The only reason someone can't be static+positivist+tactical+asking+emotivist is because "emotivist is TJ/FP", and you can't have all those combinations matching.

[PrettySavage]

its impossible to overuse them in the sense that you can't burn out energetically (or if you do it goes to other functions supporting them that knock the slats out from under you), not that they are literally "the solution to everything" so you can overuse them in that sense. its the difference between sustainability and usefulness. demonstrative is often used in a "mocking" capacity; example: when I was in the Army I'd give briefings to the BN XO (a major) in front of the colonel. A lot of times he'd quiz me trying to stump me in front of everyone, saying "what about this what about this etc" it was Ne. So I would start to answer his questions and carry the line of reasoning until I'd be saying absurd stuff like "and if an alien starship lands in the middle of our convoy we will stop, form a perimeter, and call cheyenne mountain" which would get him off my back etc. If you're creative Te and you're in the presence of ridiculous Ti you might start to engineer paradoxes just to throw it back at them or stuff like that

I thought "overuse" meant applying it incorrectly, as when it's not only unnecessary but inadequate for the task. Like an ExE would never bring in the equation at the wrong time for example, which is what got me confused. Thanks for clearing that up, it's the key concept so it's vital Ii get that right.

Still, the lack of standardized clear cut definitions without contradictions is that itch I can't scratch. But I did this to myself, no one told me to get hooked on an obscure Russian typology system where data itself is scarce and sometimes hard to navigate.

[Bertrand]

someone just cropped those products together its not a good indicator of socionics... I like these guys for systemic cogency, and reinin

plus the whole thing is a work in progress, you'll see definitions decades apart mashed up... its a real problem, but its the nature of the beast when on the cutting edge

[PrettySavage]

@Bertrand

It's what you get when you're ahead of the curve... I admire your loyalty to Rein, I really do.

Thanks a bunch for the link, I like a bit of light reading at night.

[Pookie]

It's just a tenet of the theory, a positivist+tactical+asking+emotivist, is going to be a dynamic. Ultimately it's because when you mix those things together, you don't get a static type. Mix one more and if becomes contradictory. That type of person won't be carefree, or process oriented. Those traits directly cause someone to be result oriented, and farsighted.

Try to think of them as synergetic. A tactical(makes due with shifting goals by using a set of tools that can apply regardless of the goal) positivist(someone who tries to tie all loose strings together and in doing so creates a new vision) emotivist(focus on emotional gains) that asks questions preeminently, they beget the result oriented behavior.

[Hope]

Who knows, guess due the nature of the dichotomies and the functions of each type. I'm pretty comfortable with my dichotomies, I think it fits really well, but that link has not my fav. descriptions of dichotomies...sociotype.com has significantly more accurate descriptions of dichotomies. F.e. in the link you provided says this about rational/irrational:

First assesses the incoming information, then comes up with a response (or applies an existing pattern) to the situation using his or her experience.

Rational

Irrational

Takes in the incoming information directly without assessing it or relating it to his or her experience.

...which actually has nothing to do with my way of thinking and acting at all, and it even contradicts the quadra values, that says that personal experience (due Fi valuing) is highly important than in the rest of the quadras.

On the other hand, this description its tons better and actually makes a lot of sense:

Typical Characteristics

Rationals

1. Tend to plan ahead, make decisions early
2. Are more often rigid and stubborn
3. Do not like to change their decisions
4. Tend to finish what they started.
5. Usually have stiff movements.
6. Usually more 'authoritarian' leadership style.
7. Low stress tolerance.

Irrationals

1. Tend to wait and see, more spontaneous
2. Are more often flexible and tolerant.
3. Change their decisions frequently.
4. Tend to start new things without finishing them.
5. Usually have gentle movements.
6. Usually more 'democratic' leadership style.
7. High stress tolerance.

Rational (Judging) Types: LII (INTj) ESE (ESFj) LSI (ISTj) EIE (ENFj) ESI (ISFj) LIE (ENTj) EII (INFj) LSE (ESTj)

Irrational (Perceiving) Types: ILE (ENTp) SEI (ISFp) SLE (ESTp) IEI (INFp) SEE (ESFp) ILI (INTp) IEE (ENFp) SLI (ISTp)


So, imo, sources are really important.

BTW, hilarious how they put Shrek in Gabin, Donkey in Huxley and Winnie Pooh in Dumas…what they were thinking?


EDIT. Yes, is due the functions according sociotype.com:

"Dichotomies in Jung's Typology and in socionics exist side by side with functional models and are generally recognized to be a result of the position of various IM elements rather than an independent property. For example, rationality / irrationality and extraversion / introversion are defined by the leading function. Sensing / intuition and thinking / feeling ("logic / ethics" in socionics) are determined by which of these functions is present among the first two functions."

[Lao Tzunami]

@Zero , @FANXY CHILD

I made a little worksheet you can try out.

These are the instructions [link] and
this is the worksheet [link].

You'll probably want to print out ~6 copies. If you try it, let me know how you like it ^u^

[Zero]

It's just a tenet of the theory, a positivist+tactical+asking+emotivist, is going to be a dynamic. Ultimately it's because when you mix those things together, you don't get a static type. Mix one more and if becomes contradictory. That type of person won't be carefree, or process oriented. Those traits directly cause someone to be result oriented, and farsighted.

Try to think of them as synergetic. A tactical(makes due with shifting goals by using a set of tools that can apply regardless of the goal) positivist(someone who tries to tie all loose strings together and in doing so creates a new vision) emotivist(focus on emotional gains) that asks questions preeminently, they beget the result oriented behavior.

where did you get those definitions from? they make sense

[Zero]

I didn't realize Assange was typed IEI but I don't know much about him other than the crimes he is accused of.

he is a very important figure in the modern world and has offered a very original way of thinking

[Simo]

what you said about NT,SF democrat vs NF,ST aristocrat, you have a point in there, and I know that you are very fund of Jung. It is a point to note but still not the answer I think.

since when was I very fund of Jung? don't make things up but maybe reinin was very fund of him

back to answer your question

we can't have someone who is negativist+strategic+obstinate+farsighted and is an aristocrat. why? I know the facts, just don't understand why

well as @sindri said before those names were given later (after the math) so they can't be mix in someone because they don't add up mathematically not because of the names can't be added and I don't know anyone who tried to prove why certain dichotomies' descriptions don't exist after all there would be so many combinations that don't exist in socionics so it is easier to prove mathematically and hope the descriptions given to each of reinin dichotomies are accurate (for example, are all NT & SF types democrats? and are all democrats NT or SF types only? if you can answer both questions "yes" then you proved that democrats is the right description for NT & SF types and you can apply the same logic to the rest)

ok now let's do some math to answer your specific example
negativist = ISF, INT, ENF, EST
strategic = NJ or SP
obstinate = EF or IT
farsighted = ES or IN
if we add them up we get: negativist+strategic+obstinate+farsighted = INTJ
and since INTJ is neither NF nor ST then it can't be aristocrat

so as I said trying to prove every possibility is a tedious job so I think you just need to prove each dichotomy alone (for example, is "farsighted = ES or IN" always true? and why?) then math will prove which combinations are possible and which are not

[Simo]

Do you think there's a better alternative than the Wiki explanation of their meaning?

I was trying to say sometimes words don't express ideas as intended so you describe x idea using y words but the other person understands y words as z idea then both of you think you are talking about the same idea but actually you are talking about x and the other is talking about z