Dichotomies

[LPolaright]

I've been looking up for information and I started learning Socionics through WikiSocion. The first subject I encountered was functions and then I found several words I didn't understand because I haven't studied the Dichotomies yet - and so I went from functions to dichotomies.

Now, it all seemed good - it was clear almost 100% to what they reference in Jung's dichotomies (the first 4 - I/E, S/N, T/F, P/J [Which is not really Jung's but let us let it go]) but then I was revealed to the next 11 - which was Reinin's... The information about them wasn't as detailed as the other 4.

But I realized what made it so hard to understand the dichotomies - the fact that I can't really understand what is the "purpose" of them, let me explain:

Introversion / Extroversion is basically a dichotomy about "energy" intake.
Sensing / Intuition is a dichotomy about "perception" of the world.
Thinking / Feeling is a dichotomy about "judging" the world.
Perception / Judging is a dichotomy of "lifestyle".

But when it comes to the other 11 I have trouble finding the keyword to explain it all... Here is the list I compiled based on what I understood - and I will be glad if anyone could fix me or even give me a better keyword.

Introversion/Extroversion - (Energy)
Intuitive/Sensing - (Perception)
Thinking/Feeling - (Judging)
Perception/Judging - (Lifestyle)

Tier2 :

(Basically I compiled the keywords so you could pair it up with words)
(For example - "Static Properties" is pretty self explanatory -
Kind of "constant" snapshots of properties that only change if much of the properties changed)

Static/Dynamic - (Properties)
Yielding/Obstinate - (Ideology)
Aristocratic/Democratic - (Association)
Tactical/Strategical - (Task Orientation) - Changed
Constructivist/Emotivist - (Presentation)
Carefree/Farsighted - (Preparation)

Tier3:

Merry/Serious - (Devision)
Judicious/Decisive - (Decisions)
Positivist/Negativist - (Amount of Tools)
Process/Result - (Production Focus)

Tier4:

Asking/Declaring - (Pronouncement)

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Don't mix Socionics dichotomies and MBTI types. Also the Reinin dichotomies don't have a purpose beyond further classification. The descriptions are detailed though, each dichotomy has its own article.

But first understand the basics of Socionics theory before trying to dissect and apply some of its concepts.

 

[LPolaright]

Don't mix Socionics dichotomies and MBTI types. Also the Reinin dichotomies don't have a purpose beyond further classification. The descriptions are detailed though, each dichotomy has its own article.

But first understand the basics of Socionics theory before trying to dissect and apply some of its concepts.

I'm not trying to apply anything yet, I just need a better understanding into the dichotomies.

I'm not seeking for purpose in them, I'm seeking for clarification.
Sure each has it's own article but none of them seem to give a clear keyword that will explain what each dichotomy tries to explain.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Ok so by purpose what do you mean? Are you trying to dissect them into oblivion? Lol. In my opinion, they don't need to be simplified anymore. Can you give specific details about what you don't understand?

 

[LPolaright]

Ok so by purpose what do you mean? Are you trying to dissect them into oblivion? Lol. In my opinion, they don't need to be simplified anymore. Can you give specific details about what you don't understand?

I'm trying to understand what is the focus of each dichotomy.
By doing this, you could say I'm dissecting it into oblivion, yes.

for example, I could ask you what is your preference - water\fire - but in relation to what exactly? if the keyword is "die by..." it would be very different than "having powers of...".

I don't have a context for the dichotomies of Reinin, at-least not like Jung's.
Another example:
Introversion/Extroversion in the context of energy intake but not in the context of social preference.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

I still don't understand. Socionics is an intertype relationship theory, so the context is society. You seem to have described them already, but you still don't have comprehension?

 

[LPolaright]

I still don't understand. Socionics is an intertype relationship theory, so the context is society. You seem to have described them already, but you still don't have comprehension?

It's a question of - how accurate my comprehension is?
Is it right? Is it wrong? Is it inaccurate?

The context of the whole theory is society
The context of all these words is "dichotomies"
What is the context for each pair of words?

The description for jung's dichotomies were supposed to give you an example.

The context of Sensing and Intuition is Perceiving.

=================================================

It feels weird talking (no offence) to you because you look at the much bigger picture and you seek to apply all or part of your Socionics knowledge, but all I ask is for one simple thing that is not supposed to be related - just semantics to understand the big picture inside the smaller unrelated part.

I might be complicating stuff, but all for the greater cause of understanding how all pieces combined define Socionics.

Though I'm appreciative of the fact you keep trying and not letting this post die (although I'm not really sure of your motives). Thank you.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

It's a question of - how accurate my comprehension is?
Is it right? Is it wrong? Is it inaccurate?

The context of the whole theory is society
The context of all these words is "dichotomies"
What is the context for each pair of words?

The description for jung's dichotomies were supposed to give you an example.

The context of Sensing and Intuition is Perceiving.

Well, I'm not exactly sure of your intentions so it's hard to give you direct replies. In terms of the Reinin dichotomies having each a one word description, like 'Perceiving', you won't find it. They don't have one because they do not determine type, they merely classify it further than Jungian dichotomies. So if you want to give them a word, by all means do it, still, types only require the 4 Jungian dichotomies. It is possible to create more types with the other dichotomies, but they do not exist in reality(at least they haven't been discovered... ).

EDIT: Oh wait. I think I understand now. Give me a sec to think about it.

=================================================

It feels weird talking (no offence) to you because you look at the much bigger picture and you seek to apply all or part of your Socionics knowledge, but all I ask is for one simple thing that is not supposed to be related - just semantics to understand the big picture inside the smaller unrelated part.

I might be complicating stuff, but all for the greater cause of understanding how all pieces combined define Socionics.

I see where you're coming from. Yes I am pulling back towards the big picture while you are trying to zero in on things. I do this because I feel you are trying to apply one aspect of Socionics theory without understanding the fundamentals. No matter what you say, your intentions give me that uneasy feeling of misapplication, and I am trying to see if you have the basics down.

Though I'm appreciative of the fact you keep trying and not letting this post die (although I'm not really sure of your motives). Thank you.

My motives? lol I have none. I see you're trying to understand so I'm trying to help.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Introversion/Extroversion - (Energy)
Intuitive/Sensing - (Perception)
Thinking/Feeling - (Judging)
Perception/Judging - (Lifestyle)

Tier2 :

(Basically I compiled the keywords so you could pair it up with words)
(For example - "Static Properties" is pretty self explanatory -
Kind of "constant" snapshots of properties that only change if much of the properties changed)

Static/Dynamic - (Properties)
Yielding/Obstinate - (Ideology)
Aristocratic/Democratic - (Association)
Tactical/Strategical - (Task Orientation) - Changed
Constructivist/Emotivist - (Presentation)
Carefree/Farsighted - (Preparation)

Tier3:

Merry/Serious - (Devision)
Judicious/Decisive - (Decisions)
Positivist/Negativist - (Amount of Tools)
Process/Result - (Production Focus)

Tier4:

Asking/Declaring - (Pronouncement)

For Yielding/Obstinate - I would say identity, security or something like it.
Merry/Serious - Worldview?

The rest seem good, but I still don't see how you benefit from them. Not to be critical, I just would like to understand the importance of all this.

 

[LPolaright]

I found that all these dichotomies are actually helpful when you're typing a person because they are based on the 4 Jungian's dichotomies - It's a revelation that came to me after classifying each pair (not as a result though).

If you find all tier2 and tier3 dichotomies and type a person by them you logically can type a person easier (by Jung's dichotomies) without actually knowing him deeply - but I'm still not entirely convinced of that. I need verification. Perhaps if there's a questionnaire for example about these dichotomies it will be more accurate.

But that's just a theory, and since I'm working on a questionnaire it might be helpful using these dichotomies, because they are more straight-forward.

Nice one for the yielding/obstinate! I've looked for that word, it was on the tip of my tongue.
Merry/Serious - Worldview sounds good as-well, but I think I relate more to "devisions" because Worldview sounds too general - if you apply it for example a business man I would rather say that he "divisionized" his life in a "serious" way.

I'm also uneasy with the dissecting situation but I thought of that in a different way - I'm applying big pictures that are in a smaller than what I perceived before and then assemble them as a puzzle to build an even bigger picture.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

I found that all these dichotomies are actually helpful when you're typing a person because they are based on the 4 Jungian's dichotomies - It's a revelation that came to me after classifying each pair (not as a result though).

Yes. But these dichotomies correspond to Socionics types. Even though some hold that introverted types stay the same, you still get the occasional confused type, which might just be a testing issue, but still.

If you find all tier2 and tier3 dichotomies and type a person by them you logically can type a person easier (by Jung's dichotomies) without actually knowing him deeply - but I'm still not entirely convinced of that. I need verification. Perhaps if there's a questionnaire for example about these dichotomies it will be more accurate.

But that's just a theory, and since I'm working on a questionnaire it might be helpful using these dichotomies, because they are more straight-forward.

This is what I was uneasy about. A lot of people don't go by tests in Socionics. They say it's unreliable as your mind is already biased from MBTI, and I have to say I agree. A test will do no good if you're trying to apply it to MBTI. I say learn the correlating Socionics types and then reflect on your (new) experiences to see the Reinin dichotomies in reality.

Nice one for the yielding/obstinate! I've looked for that word, it was on the tip of my tongue.
Merry/Serious - Worldview sounds good as-well, but I think I relate more to "devisions" because Worldview sounds too general - if you apply it for example a business man I would rather say that he "divisionized" his life in a "serious" way.

What is your definition of devision?

If I'm correct of your semantics that's not how it works. Serious = Serious judgement. Merry = Merry judgement. It means how people choose to react to their Judicious or Decisive perception.

 

[LPolaright]

Yes. But these dichotomies correspond to Socionics types. Even though some hold that introverted types stay the same, you still get the occasional confused type, which might just be a testing issue, but still.

What do you mean by the "occasional type confusion"? Perhaps I don't understand because I haven't read all the socionics theory yet.

This is what I was uneasy about. A lot of people don't go by tests in Socionics. They say it's unreliable as your mind is already biased from MBTI, and I have to say I agree. A test will do no good if you're trying to apply it to MBTI. I say learn the correlating Socionics types and then reflect on your (new) experiences to see the Reinin dichotomies in reality.

I was going to do just that, that's why I still kept it as a theory. I still have no clue why there are such strong debates over socionics and MBTI but I guess I will figure it out.

What is your definition of devision?

A group that is separate from another correlating group by a recognizable line. Nobody ever asked me that, so I wouldn't know really how to describe it... In this case it's a group of attributes of worldview perception that is applied on different cases.

If I'm correct of your semantics that's not how it works. Serious = Serious judgement. Merry = Merry judgement. It means how people choose to react to their Judicious or Decisive perception.

I realize it doesn't have to do with actual judgment - but how we compartmentalize ourselves from business and pleasure when it comes to judgment calls or even everyday actions.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

What do you mean by the "occasional type confusion"? Perhaps I don't understand because I haven't read all the socionics theory yet.

Confused convert, I mean, even under neutral methods.

I was going to do just that, that's why I still kept it as a theory. I still have no clue why there are such strong debates over socionics and MBTI but I guess I will figure it out.

IMO there shouldn't even be a problem, the thing is, though - using one you have to discredit the other. Using both you have to be aware of the boundaries so you don't mix incompatible concepts.

I realize it doesn't have to do with actual judgment - but how we compartmentalize ourselves from business and pleasure when it comes to judgment calls or even everyday actions.

Okay, yea, that's pretty much it.

 

[LPolaright]

Great discussion - it lead me to great revelations.
Although it felt like a 2 sided conversation rather then a "forum" discussion.

Where's everyone?

 

[SkyWalker]

ok i would like to join, but i dont know anything about socionics yet.

since they call it tiers, i expect them to be a kind of higher rationalities built on top of the MBTI base? so MBTI is still the base personality system? and from that flow the other dimensions (or dichotomies or whatever you call it).

 

[LPolaright]

The other tiers are based on the first 4 Jungian dichotomies, but even more on the socionics perceiving and judging functions.

MBTI is a different system, I'm sure there is an article somewhere to present the differences.

 

[nobody]

Aristocratic/Democratic - (Association)

So I don't talk or think about typology much anymore, at least not seriously. And I'm not sure it's worth prefacing this with why, since most people (not just on this forum, but in general) don't have good theoretical foundations to criticize properly (and I was once guilty of this too).

But that dichotomy is probably the only aspect of Socionics that seems to reveal something deep about human behavior when you separate it from being strictly type related and observe the functions it represents (mainly ST vs NT) in a more extemporaneous and raw form.

Se+Ti (often very ISTP,ESTP, sometimes ENFJ believe it or not) -> often very aristocratic with others, oversimplifying phenomena and misrepresenting others character (seemingly with intention), likes to create and attack strawmen, stubborn and seem to think their interpretation of things is the truth or all that matters. You just do what they want or they get rid of you. You exist for their aims and goals.

Si+Ti (often very ISFJ,ESFJ) -> more controlling behavior, likes to oversimplify and mischaracterize things (not seemingly intentional, but to reduce complexity) so they can decide who to stand against and why. Will defer to other people, only if you don't contradict some inherent sensibility they treat as a value, such as certain traditions or customs they cherish.

Si+Te (often very ESTJ) -> likes to be in control, reduce problems to something manageable, even if the problems are poorly understood or will hurt people. Everyone must align with the leadership and goal, no matter how misguided or toxic it is. You feel like there is more of a hierarchy in your value as a human being.

Ni+Ti (often very INTP,INTJ) -> Usually appreciates nuance because they want to see something deeper, see what they missed, or understand deeper than surface level. Most introverted and hands-off from what I can see. So very willing to democratize things so they can focus on the bigger picture more, but that also means letting people make mistakes and not giving them as much direction.

Ni+Te (often very ENTJ, ENFP) -> Tend to be very receptive leaders. Like Ni+Ti, they appreciate nuance and want to be aware of as much as possible. So also very democratic, but much more willing and able to direct people, reducing mistakes and focusing on things that produce the best results.

Ne+Ti (often very ENTP) -> Generally very inclusive and very willing to let people add their own views and value to everything. It aids in their creative process and they like the stimulation and easy atmosphere of people being on the same level in terms of worth and ability to be included for their uniqueness.

Anyway, I really like this dichotomy for the abstraction it helped elucidate for me.