Socionics Personals | | Female Straight 16-25 Oceania Libra ENFj |
| | Male Straight 16-25 Middle East Sagittarius INTj |
| | Male Straight 26-35 North America Pisces INXj |
| Join now! |
Who is who?Learn how to convert between different systems
V.I.An introduction into the widely used Socionics Visual Identification technique
TestsA collection of Socionics related tests and quizes
Q & AsAsk a Socionics related question or provide an answer to an existing one
ArticlesVarious articles on the subject of Socionics and Types in general
ForumsWant to discuss Type? Head to Socionics Forums!
|
The whole lot of useless nothing
by Sergei Ganin
By now, due to some available translations, it is regrettably known that classical socionists are really keen on 11 additional dichotomies, discovered by St. Petersburg's mathematician Grigory Reinin back in 1984, who was awarded a title of Doctor of Philosophy in the field of Socionics for increasing the number of ... available dichotomies from 4 to 15. It is unbeknown to me how exactly he arrived to this number and not any other number, but it seems to me he should have considered more dichotomies, like maybe few thousands more? And this is why...
Under superficial examination, Reinin dichotomies look quite promising, since instead of 4 usual scales of preferences that traditionally define the type, the additional 11 could be used, therefore theoretically making it possible to increase the reliability of testing significantly. There is no surprise that many supporters of classical Socionics have clung to this idea like a scuba diver to an aqualung. What's more, Reinin dichotomies have been mysteriologically tied with a classical model A, which gave them some sort of needed credibility. Given that the model A is just A model and nothing more, they therefore come to nowhere near the global understanding of types.
So what are Reinin dichotomies? (I apologise if I translated the original terms rather frivolously, as it makes no difference to the point of this article). They are: "Static" vs "Dynamic", "Positivist" vs "Negativist", "Questim" vs "Declatim", "Tactical" vs "Strategic", "Constuctivist" vs "Emotivist", "Left" vs "Right", "Farsighted" vs "Careless", "Obstinate" vs "Compliant", "Resolute" vs "Reasonable", "Merry" vs "Serious", "Autocratic" vs "Democratic".
These dichotomies are supposedly explained by examining model A as to which functional element is present in which block etc., and it is not really worth going into much detail. For example: Questims are all Extratims with [+] in the mental block of the model A and all Intratims with [-] in the mental block of the model A, Declatims are vice versa.
Some of the other Reinin dichotomies are quite obvious. The Static/Dynamic dichotomy for example could also be described in a primitive way of 4 preferences. The Static vs Dynamic dichotomy corresponds to Exxj, Ixxp types vs Exxp, Ixxj types. I actually find this dichotomy quite interesting. For some strange reason it's been widely accepted that these new dichotomies are behaviour related and therefore one should be able to assign behavioural patterns to each group. As a result each Reinin dichotomy has a behavioural description attached to it and in my opinion the main reason they have problem making them work.
If you look at the preferences you can see that Exxj and Ixxp are two very different type categories to be in the same behavioural group, so I don't really know how could one even start generalising such behaviour. I however don't say that these types cannot be in the same group, but not behaviour wise. What I've noticed is that these types have similar, quite prominent and easily observable physiological features that could already be used practically to distinguish types by this dichotomy. I won't go into details for now.
So this is what I did. I constructed a program that would iterate through all possible dichotomies, i.e. groups of 8 vs 8 types. There are 6435 such dichotomies and every single Reinin dichotomy is included in this number. To see the output of this program ( note that the script might take long time to generate the result, so if you get "long running script" warning, just let it run anyway) click here. To compare, here is the Reinin/Common dichotomies result only.
Then I decided to look into Temperament theories, since there seem to be some correlation with Reinin dichotomies (you might have noticed already). We all probably know at least one such theory - the Keirsey's 4 temperaments: SP, SJ, NT, NF. I don't know why would Keirsey choose such a spastic group of pairs instead of NT, NF, ST, SF, but this is probably for the same reason why MBTI® Judging introverts have a dominant Perceiving function whilst Judging extraverts have a dominant Judging functions, same sort of semilogical approach I suppose, not very thoughtful shall I add. So I constructed a table of all 24 possible Temperament theories based on a combination of 4 preferences:
EN,ES,IN,IS |
EF,ET,IF,IT |
Ej,Ep,Ij,Ip |
NF,NT,SF,ST |
Nj,Np,Sj,Sp |
Fj,Fp,Tj,Tp |
EN,ES,IF,IT |
EF,ET,IN,IS |
NF,NT,ES,IS |
SF,ST,EN,IN |
EF,IF,NT,ST |
ET,IT,NF,SF |
Sp,Sj,NT,NF* |
SF,ST,Nj,Np |
Fj,Fp,NT,ST |
Tj,Tp,NF,SF |
Nj,Sj,Fp,Tp |
Np,Sp,Fj,Tj |
Fj,Fp,ET,IT |
Tj,Tp,EF,IF |
Ej,Ij,Fp,Tp |
Ep,Ip,Fj,Tj |
EF,ET,Ij,Ip |
IF,IT,Ej,Ep |
* Keirsey
When I filtered 6435 dichotomies through 24 temperaments I ended up with 46 dichotomies ( the result). Yes, the primitive way of 4 preferences yelled more possible dichotomies than Reinin found initially. But this is not all. I cross-referenced Reinin with temperaments and there are only 10 (well 6 if you exclude the usual 4) dichotomies from 15 that match together ( the result). This means that you can easily look further than 46. So it appears to be that the total number dichotomies that could be explained in one way or another is already 51 ( the result).
If you take into account that Reinin dichotomies are mostly Quadsymmetrical, meaning that there are 2 types from each Quadrible in each group (if you exclude 3-1-3-1 for example) there are 648 Quadsymmetrical dichotomies ( the result). And if you add to it all Reinin and Temperament dichotomies that are not Quadsymmetrical you end up with 667 dichotomies ( the result). It appears to me that if you really want to waste your time on dichotomising socionics even further, then you cannot go below that number when deciding on what dichotomies to consider.
I don't want to sound wrong by saying that all this has no value whatsoever, so I won't say it. But I will say that all this undoubtedly brings even more confusion in the type theory. So if you want to pollute your brains - be my guest, only do it properly on the global scale of understanding and not with some incomplete additional 11 scales... So, can I have my medal now?
|
|
C1 I’m simply seeking clarification on the terms. For: ·"Static" vs "Dynamic" do you mean sedentary vs active? ·“Positivist" vs "Negativist" do you mean optimistic vs pessimistic? ·“Questim" vs "Declatim" do you mean inquisitive vs indifferent? ·“Constuctivist" vs "Emotivist do you mean system-oriented vs people-oriented? ·"Left" vs "Right" do you mean left handed vs right handed (or brained)? ·"Farsighted" vs "Careless" do you mean farsighted vs nearsighted? ·"Resolute" vs "Reasonable" do you mean resolute vs irresolute? ·"Merry" vs "Serious" do you mean cavalier vs considerate? -- I/O |
C2 Not really, they mean something else so you can't go by the name alone. -- SG |
C3 The Reinin dichotomies are defined simply in terms of the original dichotomies, producing 11 new ones. Also, Reinin dichotomies are really an alternative to Model A, and not a derivative of it (+/- is an attempt to relate the two). See http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Reinin_dichotomies. -- thehotelambush |
C4 Thanks for the clarification on Reinin dichotomies, it is even worse than I initially thought. Basically, what suggested is that Reinin dichotomies derive from a certain way of combining the 4 preferences. Why exactly that way or not some other way or not all possible ways as demonstrated in this article? You either look at all ways of combining the preferences or PROVE that there is only 1 way - your way. Where is the proof that Reinin's little formula is the only way of combining the 4 preferences? It could be mathematically valid, it could be encrusted with gold and diamonds, but if you can't prove that it is the only valid way, it is worthless. I am sorry, but I've seen enough people pulling theories out of their arses based entirely on bugger all to say that. -- SG |
C5 I think there's a dragon over there holding your medal, you just have to go ask him politely for proper recognition and he'll hand it over, just like that. -- Al Reed |
C6 I agree with C4, it is like saying that apples, pears, peaches are fruits, but an apple is *THE* fruit. Silly. -- Anonymous |
C7 Bravo, SG! -- Anonymous |
C8 Did you actually read on the meaning of Reinin dichotomies ? Model A can actually describe them. -- machintruc |
C9 @C8, what is your 'take' on the reinin dichotomies? for my observations they are as of so little consequence that knowing them or not wouldn't have any impact on someones ability to use socionics, except maybe if one took the inclination to confuse someone. I get the impression that you think they are useful? Whatever it is is you do seem perhaps to see more use of them than I do? If you would care to publish an article of your own in regards your views I for one would be interested in reading it, thank you. -- Cyclops |
C10 There is now a much better explanation of what the Reinin dichotomies represent at the same article. It is not enough for half of a dichotomy (such as logic or merriness) to represent a group of types; a dichotomy is a vector just like a type is, but there are only 16 such vectors, and hence 15 total dichotomies (since anything plus the 0 vector is itself). 4 original dichotomies + 11 new ones = 15. It's not arbitrary at all. Get it? -- thehotelambush |
C11 My philosophical interpretation of the four dichotomies roots them in simple information theory and the greatest dichotomy of all: Mind/Body. And this is why "four" is all you need and not worth exceeding. I have constructed my own little typing test from this. Mind/Body + Input/Output + Enhanced/Suppressed And one assumption: Mind is biased in favor of Mind. It either enhances Mind, or suppresses Body. So the four dichotomies, in their order of diminishing importance (IMO), are 1 - Body Input Suppressed - which corresponds to Judging - I call it Condemning 2 - Mind Input Enhanced - which corresponds to Intuitive - I call it Ideological 3 - Mind Output Enhanced - which corresponds to Thinking - I call it Technical 4 - Body Output Suppressed - which corresponds to Introvert - I call it Stifled So on a day to day basis I can quickly run a type test by asking is this person Condemning, Ideological, Technical, Stifled. Normal conversation pronounces on these themes rather quickly. I know the terms are rather pejorative. But it does expedite the logic. And by the way, my paradigm identifies a scientific control: ESFP. All to say I happy Mr Ganin can see four types are plenty. I know a few people of each type, and I now find I spontaneously adjust my conversation and attitude accordingly. It works great, and more refinement would have the whiff of bureaucracy. WHICH I DON'T WANT: I am ESFP. Overall I'd say the 16 types arise from *Mental Interference*, so I believe the various 16-Type theories derive their power from Zen, or Tao. THE TAO Cross-eyed now Is mind and matter Tao's two Towers together Split is heart Yours and mine Tao's but One divine Pull the drapes Take a pose Consummate As it goes There is neither Rate nor duty Only light's Emergent beauty ~mlh -- MLH |
C12 C11 those are some interesting ideas... gives me something to think about. -- Anonymous |
C13 @MLH, what do you mean by "expedite the logic"? The dichotomies are not quite as simple as you make them out to be (in the sense of being captured perfectly in a single English word). -- thehotelambush |
C14 Reinin dichotomies are complete rubbish, even Aushra said that. Anyone with a bit of logic in their brains could see it is a trap. Stay away! -- Anonymous |
C15 I think anyone who wants to use Reinin dichotomies has no interest in actually typing anyone really. They're just theory. And they're not even good theory. They're crap theory. They aren't even fit for my desktop garbage box they are so crap! -- Anonymous |
C16 @C13 - By "expedite the logic" I mean decide quickly, easily. For instance, you may wonder a long time if someone is judging, or judgmental, or critical, or sarcastic, or accepting, or go-with-the-flow, etc. But if you notice a person is often dismissive out-of-hand, or somehow is always making you repeat perfectly clear statements, you can be sure their very brain is stopping input that doesn't meet whatever expectation, ie they condemn perception itself. I use the best single words I can figure for the purpose of arriving at a type. Just a means. I'm ESFp with a tinge of intuition. I've got my own codes too. From Null (ESFp), to CITS (INTj) and everybody in between S, T, I, C, TS, IS, IT, CS, CIT, etc. So little energy wasted squinting at MBTI. For instance CS means Condemning and Stifled. I call this one The Censor. It corresponds to Guardian, ESI, ISFj. Such fun. Even made my own plasticized flip card. Like for bird watching. -- mlh |
C17 I agree, Sergei. Renin Dichotomies are bunk. -- Anonymous |
C18 A little notice to Keirsey's temperaments: Keirsey and Berens didn't notice it, but it's very interesting. Keirsey's temperaments choice made them relate in the same way as the 4 summits of a tetrahedron relate. There are no opposite! Each temperament is totally different from the other 3 ones except about 1 thing: Rational (MBTI NT) and Idealist (MBTI NF) have in common "abstract" while Artisan (MBTI SP) and guardian (MBTI SJ) have in common "concrete". SP and NT have in common "utilitarian" while SJ and NF have in common "cooperative", NT and SJ have in common "structure" while NF and SP have in common "motive". This system DOESN'T work with socionics types while the correlation between MBTI and Keirsey's temperament is about 70%. BTW Berens'"interactions-styles" also relate in the same way as the 4 summits of a tetrahedron do. -- piccolo_michel |
C19 Well, I hope you're not dismissing them entirely; if it wasn't for these dichotomies, I would never have realised i'm ENTP. -- formerly ISTj. |
C20 :o) C19... you thought you were ISTj and after reading about Reinin Dichotomies you think you are ENTp?!? It's a joke, isn't it? ISTj = - ENTp = - so was your weakest and now it's the strongest?! And you learned that by reading about Reinin Crap?!? ) -- INTj |
C21 oh dear it's so fun to read all these comments...everyones' got their own unique way of speaking. By the way i like SG's style of writing; you sound just like miles naismith who is my favorite SF character! And also an applause to mlh...you contribute a very clear way of thinking about personalities. lovely to see such elegant way of rounding up complex concepts! I wondered for some moment if you belong to ENFP instead of ESFP because from what i've learned from experience, ENFPs are so adaptive that they sometimes confuse themselves... i apologize if this made you feel bad, i was just simply curious I always wonder if i am istj or infp, the more i learn about the type theories the more i feel unsure. maybe i am mature enough to become balanced? haha. Anyway it's so amazing that so many different people have their own unique soul...which i believe makes each one so divine... -- a |
C22 I loved that line about the medal. -- tcaudilllg |
|
Would you like to add anything? |
( When posting, we ask you to make the effort to qualify your opinions.)
|
|