Reinin dichotomies

[Olduvai]

You think two cars on a collision course, getting closer and closer together, finally running into each other and the process of them crushing each other up from the impact is "a thing at rest".
I see it as a dynamic field that changes as each car moves closer to the other, and a dynamic interaction (also a dynamic field) as each car crushes the other. In summary, i see it as "things at motion"

Given the definition of "fields" as "things that are perceived through the subject by means of feelings and cannot be studied apart from the subject", wouldn't your example be incorrect? In this case, all you're doing is perceiving motion.

You see two cars crashing into each other, destroying each other as a single object without a subject.

A field requires an object and a subject.

A "subject" is an observer. "Objects" are "things that can be observed, studied, and discussed apart from the subject (observer)". That's what @ae1905 meant when he/she/it said, "Si is concerned with the relations between objects and the self, not with the relations between objects that have no relation to the self", because the self is the observer.

But socionics' "fields" don't require the observer in order for it to be a field. It just requires a minimum of two objects/concepts tied together in some way.

Are you sure?

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure there's some Si going on in the following video:

@00:20 -- "when I stood up I had blood in my mouth, I could smell burnt hair, I felt like I had real bad sunburn on my leg" -- isn't this Si? He's talking about sensation, but it's not something you can point to and say, "there!" like you'd be able to with Se; instead, he seems to be describing what his sensory experience was like for him. I could smell this, I felt like that.

[FDG]

NT and SF are characterized as democratic because NTs don't concern themselves with people-things (thus they accept whatever comes without really thinking much about it) while SFs concern themselves only with people-things but on an "involved" level, without abstracting their qualities and forming groups on the basis of such abstraction. This combination of attitudes creates a society where people come and go and groups of friends are generally "unstable".

In your example an ENTj will be interested in leading groups of people but will not concern himself with the specific abstract qualities of each person (political affiliation, race, country of origin, schooling) except his her ability or willingness to execute the job.

Positivism-negativism: positivists are democratic extravert or aristocratic introverts. Negativists are democratic introverts or aristocratic extroverts.

In a (democrat) society where people come and go and you can communicate freely with everyone, extroversion gives you the feeling that you can actually do and say whatever you want, you will Always be able to find someone that will agree with you. Conversely introversion gives you the feeling that you are missing out on what is happening out there.
In an (aristocrat) society where groups and social roles are fixed extraverts are limited in their scope of action and will accumulate information on how these limitations are configured and where the "proper border" lies, thus becoming enforcers of a given social order. Introverts find themselves in a powerful position since their stabilization role is Paramount to the group's functioning, thus becoming kind of "managers" of a given Group.

This is the standard russian socionics take on the issue, you are free to disagree but I won't debate with you on this matter.

[Pookie]

@00:20 -- "when I stood up I had blood in my mouth, I could smell burnt hair, I felt like I had real bad sunburn on my leg" -- isn't this Si? He's talking about sensation, but it's not something you can point to and say, "there!" like you'd be able to with Se; instead, he seems to be describing what his sensory experience was like for him. I could smell this, I felt like that.

The words behind the first two commas are in Te Form.

[Olduvai]

The words behind the first two commas are in Te Form.

Are you talking about "when I stood up I had blood in my mouth, I could smell burnt hair"? Not quite sure what exactly you're referring to...

Whatever the case, I don't see any Te in there. Te has to do with how something functions, what its action or purpose is, what it does. "An EKG translates the heart's electrical activity into line tracings on a paper" and "it picks up electrical impulses generated by the polarization and depolarization of cardiac tissue and translates them into a waveform" might be examples of Te.

[strrrng]

The way I interpret implicit is derived from. So N is implicit because it is derived from immediate sensory perceptions--ie, N operates on S perceptions. S is largely explicit but can be implicit when the perceptions are of relations between people and things (Si); that is, the Si perceptions of these relations are derived from the immediate sensory perceptions of those things. T operates on S perceptions, F feelings, N intuitions, and T concepts and is therefore implicit. T, in fact, is at least as far removed from reality as N, and often farther. F also operates on S perceptions, T concepts, N intuitions, and F feelings, but it can also generate its own feelings sui generis. So F is closer to reality than T, even though feelings outside of us are not usually directly observable in the same way objects outside of us are. So F is both explicit and implicit.

So Se is the most explicit aspect of reality. N, T, Si, and those aspects of F that are derivative are all implicit.

N is implicit in the sense you're intending by virtue of being abstract -- broader perceptions/ideations are derived from localized events/nodes (but it's also implicit in the sense of being internal, i.e. extracting latent cues and qualities from things and people... part of the reason why this dichotomy isn't the best). Si is implicit by virtue of being a field, but in the more general sense it's explicit. T isn't as far as 'removed from reality' as N, being an external function, and is likewise only implicit by virtue of being abstract (although this really only applies to Ti, being subjective, as Te is a very concrete function); F can be 'closer to reality' than T because it's involved, i.e. perceptions are directly and naturally aligned with the subject, but overall I would say it's implicit, given that the judgments it arrives at are always internal, self-contained things. so I see your dichotomy as rather loose and misplaced.

Just because I'm dumb enough to make one last ditch effort towards helping you understand part of where you are erring...

You think two cars on a collision course, getting closer and closer together, finally running into each other and the process of them crushing each other up from the impact is "a thing at rest".
I see it as a dynamic field that changes as each car moves closer to the other, and a dynamic interaction (also a dynamic field) as each car crushes the other. In summary, i see it as "things at motion"

You see two cars crashing into each other, destroying each other as a single object without a subject. That you can talk about the impact of one of the cars without referring to the other car at all.
I am having difficulty figuring out how a person can describe a crash between two cars by only describing one car without referencing the other car at all.

the dynamic element of the cars crashing is simply the fact that they're objects in motion. so, given that no function directly relates to basic sensory perception (any more than Ni is specifically related to time as such), the functions that would best apply would be Te and Se. but again, this is just general. Si would notice how the cars were causing various sensations and reactions to transpire, it would probably remember the subjective sensory input that directly preceded the impact and whatever images this spawned (similar to Ni, but the latter's images are something more separate from the event). the observable process is Te, but again I don't see functions being able to be reified like this.

Now, in some fields, the subject or object CAN be me. Such as when the f'n dog is chasing ME down the road.
But socionics' "fields" don't require the observer in order for it to be a field. It just requires a minimum of two objects/concepts tied together in some way.

I disagree. an interaction/connection between two objects can be perceived as an object. the subjective factor is key to a field, as it's the only way there's an additional influence on it, something that makes it more than a mere happening. so I'm more jungian, in this regard, I suppose.

[Olly From Wally World]

Are you talking about "when I stood up I had blood in my mouth, I could smell burnt hair"? Not quite sure what exactly you're referring to...

Whatever the case, I don't see any Te in there. Te has to do with how something functions, what its action or purpose is, what it does. "An EKG translates the heart's electrical activity into line tracings on a paper" and "it picks up electrical impulses generated by the polarization and depolarization of cardiac tissue and translates them into a waveform" might be examples of Te.

I guess he meant by how it's giving the facts of the situation. The What, Where, When, Who, etc. What happened basically. I can see what you meant by though, talk of the inner sensations.

[Pookie]

Are you talking about "when I stood up I had blood in my mouth, I could smell burnt hair"? Not quite sure what exactly you're referring to...

Whatever the case, I don't see any Te in there. Te has to do with how something functions, what its action or purpose is, what it does. "An EKG translates the heart's electrical activity into line tracings on a paper" and "it picks up electrical impulses generated by the polarization and depolarization of cardiac tissue and translates them into a waveform" might be examples of Te.

Often time if something is presented in a form that lists it as a fact or a factual manner, it's Te. Describing somethings function will generally always state it in a factual way, which is why Te works for that also.. Si is impression from the senses. Smelling burnt hair isnt an impression, its something that has happened. It's factual.

[Olduvai]

Often time if something is presented in a form that lists it as a fact or a factual manner, it's Te. Describing somethings function will generally always state it in a factual way, which is why Te works for that also..

Ehhh, I'm not big on the whole "Te is facts" idea. If I say, "the sun rose today", isn't that a fact? Would someone with Te-PoLR really have a difficult time understanding that the sun rose today? By the way, what do you mean by "describing something in a factual way"?

Si is impression from the senses. Smelling burnt hair isnt an impression, its something that has happened. It's factual.

A fact, IMO, must be demonstrably true. Can "me smelling burnt hair" be demonstrably true? If "me smelling burnt hair" isn't an impression from the senses, what's an example of something that is?

[Pookie]

Ehhh, I'm not big on the whole "Te is facts" idea. If I say, "the sun rose today", isn't that a fact? Would someone with Te-PoLR really have a difficult time understanding that the sun rose today? By the way, what do you mean by "describing something in a factual way"?

A fact, IMO, must be demonstrably true. Can "me smelling burnt hair" be demonstrably true? If "me smelling burnt hair" isn't an impression from the senses, what's an example of something that is?

I could smell burnt hair and smelling burnt hair aren't the same. One is Te and one is Se. Observational point v. Factual point. Te talks in the past tense usually.

[Olduvai]

I could smell burnt hair and smelling burnt hair aren't the same.

"I could smell burnt hair" is just someone relating that they smelled burnt hair. Is "I smell burnt hair" different from "smelling burnt hair"? Would a Te-PoLR type have difficulty understanding the expression, "I could smell burnt hair"?

IMO, all this guy is describing is his perception. There's no logic here; he's simply saying, "this is what it was like for me".

Observational point v. Factual point.

Still not sure what you mean by "factual". Also not sure what the difference is between "observational" and "factual" in this case. Is it "present tense" versus "past tense"?

[nefnaf]

So the NT dichotomy is just a mathematical result of combining the four basic dichotomies in pairs. The idea of implicit and explicit aspects of reality is a separate theoretical exercise done, perhaps, to explain this dichotomy, but without success. NT is just a mathematical artefact. It doesn't mean anything. And neither, I suspect, do most, if any, of the other 10 Reinin dichotomies.

You are correct insofar as the Reinin dichotomies are basically mathematical artifacts. However, most or all of them have some model-theoretic implications as well. For example, all Static types share the same mental and vital functions with other Statics, and ditto for Dynamic types. All Emotivist types have contact ethics and inert logic. All Serious types have valued / and subdued /, etc etc. In fact the names of many of the dichotomies are clearly inspired by their theoretic implications. If you want to understand the Reinin traits, you have to first study Model A because that's where all the labels originate.

As for Aristocratic/Democratic, that dichotomy is pretty front and center in the "plus and minus IMs" theory that extends Model A, although that won't be interesting to you unless you understand Model A first.

What this means is that SPs are the most explicit group, the group whose cognition is closest to reality. NTs and NFs who use Se would come next, followed by the SJs and the NTs and NFs who use Si, who are the most implicit. It's no coincidence LIIs and EIIs are, respectively, the most theoretical and idealistic types. They are farthest removed from reality.

It seems you are confusing some MBTI and Socionics terms. In Socionics all types "use" all eight of the functions / IMs. They are divided in various ways, the most prominent being Strong / Weak and Mental / Vital. (One additional division, e.g. Inert / Contact is necessary to distinguish mirror pairs.) When you say SP I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) you're referring to types with Strong, Mental Se. In Socionics these types can variously be called static sensors, decisive sensors, decisive statics, Agressors or simply Se ego types. They aren't "SPs" because half of them are rational (J) types.

[mu4]

You are correct insofar as the Reinin dichotomies are basically mathematical artifacts. However, most or all of them have some model-theoretic implications as well. For example, all Static types share the same mental and vital functions with other Statics, and ditto for Dynamic types. All Emotivist types have contact ethics and inert logic. All Serious types have valued / and subdued /, etc etc. In fact the names of many of the dichotomies are clearly inspired by their theoretic implications. If you want to understand the Reinin traits, you have to first study Model A because that's where all the labels originate.

Reinin dichotomes can be described mathmatically and are predicted by the math, but the important ones are far more fundamental than the jungian dichotomies. It's one of the biggest mistakes of people starting out to think Reinin are only mathmatical artifiacts.

The facts that many Reinin dichotomies are both predicted and observed gives them far more credibility then mere observation or prediction.

Also for example the foundation of socionics is the the dichotomy of static/dynamic and process/result, which thru the thermodynamic analogy create the functioning mechanism of information procession and thru this functioning mechanism, specializations based on the area of information preference produce the expression sociotype. This is also the foundation of rings of social progress and cognitive styles.

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ion-discussion

Me and chemical do a discussion on this recently, understanding this is one of the first steps to understanding the model of socionics. I add many piece from my own knowledge. A its core, there is a elegant philosophical basis for socionics which transcends the mere empirical observations of jungian typology and MBTI.

[nefnaf]

Reinin dichotomes can be described mathmatically and are predicted by the math, but the important ones are far more fundamental than the jungian dichotomies. It's one of the biggest mistakes of people starting out to think Reinin are only mathmatical artifiacts.

I would say the three most important dichotomies are Introversion / Extraversion, Static / Dynamic and Rational / Irrational. It's no coincidence any of these three is implied by the other two.

Although the N/S and T/F dichotomies are important as well, which becomes very obvious when you compare a type (in terms of dichotomies) to their Super-Ego.

[mu4]

I would say the three most important dichotomies are Introversion / Extraversion, Static / Dynamic and Rational / Irrational. It's no coincidence any of these three is implied by the other two.

Although the N/S and T/F dichotomies are important as well, which becomes very obvious when you compare a type (in terms of dichotomies) to their Super-Ego.

You do name 3 of the most important dichotomies, but process/result is the other one. Process/Result is fundamental to information processing and the direction of the information processing.