16 replies to this topic

[discojoe]

Socionics: Typology. Small Groups.

Attached Files

•  TExt_en_full_2edited.doc   1.43MB   59 downloads

[ArchonAlarion]

I skipped the parts not directly about Socionics and found it to be in general thought provoking and accurate. When he gets into specific behaviors and examples it is often vague or obviously over-simplified.

By thought provoking I mean that in some respects it adjusts my conception of the socion.

[poli]

Another book and by Reinin of all people? Awesome.

How long has this been out? I've never heard of it.

[Gilly]

Weird, this has me considering ILE again...

...and so it begins anew...

[Golden]

Wow! This is great!


Thanks for posting. xo

[Ashton]

Good shit. Thanks dj.

[eunice]

Seems good to me.

However, the only thing which I don't really agree about the typings of some celebrities.

For example, here is the list for INFj. I disagree with some typings:

The ethical-intuitive introvert – a Dostoevsky

Celebrities of this type: Fyodor Dostoyevsky (writer, Russia, XIX century) and prince Myshkin from the novel "Idiot", Vincent Van Gogh, Konstantin Paustovsky, Alexander Solzhenitsyn (writer, Russia), Alexander Sokurov, Marilyn Monroe, Vivien Leigh, Catherine Deneuve, Elizabeth Taylor.

(*Jeremy IRONS (actor, US), Julianne MOORE (actress, US), Gwyneth PALTROW (actress, UK), Sissy SPACEK (actress, US), Ralph FIENNES (actor, UK), Carrie FISHER (actress, US), Vincent Van Gogh (artist, The Netherlands), (writer, Russia), Nicholas II (monarch, Russia), Friedrich von PAULUS (army commander, Germany, 3rd Reich), Albert SPEER (politician, Germany, 3rd Reich). *)

[Galen]

Skimming over the ENFp description.

Quote

Function#1— objective intuition ( ):the zone of confidence is the integrity of the external world.Feeling of harmony and integrity of the world prevails here. A widevariety of events maybeperceived as normal: even very tough life’scircumstancescould be perceived as some kind of working environment, hetakes it easy, does notpanic. The principle of existence: “Theworld aroundme is in harmony,therefore I exist.”

I connect with this first part a lot, although I don't know if it's validity is due solely to Ne leading.

Quote

Function#-1— subjective intuition ( ):aHuxleyoften ignores the integrity of the innerworld.AHamlet enjoys beingactive in this sphere, this is his hobby and the area of creativity,butaHuxleyignores his inner world, it is an unknown territory for him.A Huxley islikely to imitate states and feelings that should be there as far ashe knows; he will make attempts to analyze his state and mood.Ifa Huxley cannot manage his mood, he puts up with it as with aninevitable evil which cannot be fought.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Does the book ever define what an "inner world" is supposed to mean?

Quote

Function#2— subjective ethics ( ):the place of creativity is my attitude to others. “IfI feel like it – then I will fall in love, if I don't feel like it– then I will fall out of love, and later I will love some more.” Thisis not the stable kind of relationships he prefers.Hisfeelings of love are never sure and stable.Today a Huxleyloves you; tomorrow willspeak for itself.People of this type haveno idea about commitment as far as their feelings and emotions areconcerned,theysway in their emotions between love and hate, they see a widespectrum of shades in-between. Atthe same time if they hate you it is not final, as it is with someother types who make up their mind once and for good. “Nothingis eternal under the moon: today I love, leave tomorrow fortomorrow”.

AHuxleyis also careless in demonstrating his attitude. "Hey,man, are you stupid or what!”he says by the way. He is joking, teasing. From the point of view ofthe alpha-quadra those jokes are completely inappropriate. I have afriend,a Huxley.I twitch every time he jokes and every time I am amazed: my innerbeing invariably reacts. What could be done? Essentially nothing canbe done here.

AHuxleyexpresses his attitude very creatively. Consequently he is lookingfor positions and opportunities to express his attitude. People ofthis type are often found in leading positions in the society wheretheir creative function is well realized:they are heading the departments at the Universities, leading peoplein other ways.

It makes ENFps sound like wishy-washy emotional retards. I'm sure there are plenty of ENFps who are like this, but it doesn't feel representative of ENFps who want a sort of constant inter-relational stability (I thought this would be true of all Fi types?).

Quote

Function#-2— objective ethics ( ): hereisthe zone of standards – thequality of the relationships depends on whether the person belongs to'my circle' or does not. Hissocial bondings are formal and standard. When out in the society aHuxleyuses the "uniform"approach. The dialogue happens on the formal basis: a Huxleytalks to people in the key of social role-playing consideringpositions of both sides. Even in his relationship with close people aHuxleyoften keeps a distance.

Not bad, I have no real objections to this part.

Quote

Function#3— objective logic ( ): hisself-esteemdepends onthe stability of the external world order. “Ifmyworld is in order,then I am a good person”.

Thesepeople look goodon a stage playinga guitar orsomething like that.As a rule, theylive to become their ideal. Peopleof this type perceive the logic of the objective circumstancesthrough the third function; therefore theysimplify the logic of the real world and idealize it.Quite often they expecttheir partners to comply with their abstract ideal.A Huxleyhas a hard time findinga spouse becausereal partners donotmeet their ideal standards. The person close by cannot be ideal bydefinition. Whyis this type also labeled as aDonJuan?Itis becauseheis on the quest for his ideal object of love, unless he chooses toidealize theexisting person.A very intelligent woman of this type once told me how she hadbroken this particular cycle:“Atone point ofmylife after a seriesof unsuccessful relationships I setmy mind on lovingonly one man, my son. And eversince I never looked at another man from that point of view.” Anyway,she found the one and only and solved the problem of the ideal manfor herself.

Oneof theacquaintances of AlexanderBlock, the Russian poet,narrated the following story. Once in 1918 he came to the poet'sapartmentand wasamazed at theideal order on his desk.Whenthe visitor asked why he keeps his desk in perfect order,Block repliedthat hefound it to be theonly way toresistthe chaos aroundhim.This is a way of self-defenseaccording tothe third function: Thereis an ideal order on my territory.Eventhoughthe positive reinforcement wasartificially organized, it workedanyway.

Asto the surrounding world, aHuxley hasan excellent ability to understand and calculate the circumstances. A Huxley hasa computer in his head; he processes a multitude of aspectsanddimensions.As we know, people pay closeattention to everythingpertaining to the third function; they work on clarifying andunderstanding thingsin this area.

AHuxley isalways ready to argue, asserting hisideals, hisworldview untilthey prove to everyone that they are right.These people often adhereto a school or a doctrine. Havingaccepted a picture of the world, they advocate and activelypopularize the adopted doctrine.A characteristic example of [size="2"][size="2"]ateacher-disciple relationship[size="2"][size="2"]is the story of [size="2"][size="2"]CharlesDarwin[size="2"][size="2"](the author of the theory of the origin of species) and Lord ThomasHuxley, the chairman of the Royal Scientific Society. Actually due toHuxley this theory was [size="2"][size="2"]popularized[size="2"][size="2"]and [size="2"][size="2"]wasplaced in the key position of the modern scientific world.[size="2"][size="2"]It is quite possible that nobody would [size="2"][size="2"]haveknown about the early Darwin’s evolutionary ideas, he was atheorist, while Huxley was a[/size][/size][size="2"][size="2"]skilful practician and [/size][/size][size="2"][size="2"]a[/size][/size] [size="2"][size="2"]brilliantpopularizer.[/size][/size] [size="2"][size="2"]And[/size][/size][size="2"][size="2"]he[/size][/size][size="2"][size="2"]brilliantlypopularized the theory.[/size][/size][/size][/size][/size][/size][/size][/size][/size][/size][/size][/size][/size][/size][/size][/size][/size][/size][size="2"]

[/size]
[size="2"][size="2"][size="3"][size="3"][size="2"][size="2"][size="3"][size="3"][size="2"][size="2"][size="3"][size="3"][size="2"][size="2"][size="3"][size="3"][size="2"][size="2"][size="3"][size="3"] [/size][/size][size="3"][size="3"]Parts of this feel very caricaturized, like about how all ENFps have impossible standards that must be met for a relationship to happen. But I get the general idea of what he's trying to say, and it kinda works. Not sure how much of this is Te related though.[/size][/size][/size][/size][/size][/size][/size][/size][/size][/size][/size][/size][/size][/size][/size][/size][/size][/size][/size][/size]
[size="2"][size="2"][size="3"][size="3"][size="2"][size="2"][size="3"][size="3"][size="2"][size="2"][size="3"][size="3"][size="2"][size="2"][size="3"][size="3"][size="2"][size="2"] [size="3"][size="3"][size="2"][size="2"][size="3"][size="2"][size="2"][size="2"][size="2"]

Quote

[/size][/size][/size][/size][/size]Function#-3[/size][/size][size="2"][size="2"]— subjective logic ([/size][/size] [size="2"][size="2"]):[/size][/size] [size="2"][size="2"]thisis the area of problem solving.[/size][/size][size="2"][size="2"]People of this type try to structure and line up [/size][/size][size="2"][size="2"]theinformation of the objective world[/size][/size] [size="2"][size="2"]asmuch as possible. [/size][/size][size="2"][size="2"]Thatis an attempt to build an ideal description of the world, which doesnot leave [/size][/size][size="2"][size="2"]anyplace[/size][/size][size="2"][size="2"]for transcendental notions, i.e. something inexpressible in terms of[/size][/size][size="2"][size="2"]theirworldview. They allow for the [/size][/size][size="2"][size="2"]unknown,but the unsearchable has no right to exist[size="3"][size="3"][size="2"]

[/size]
[/size][/size][size="3"][size="3"]Feels a little vague, but I guess it works fine.[/size][/size] [size="3"][size="3"][size="2"][size="2"][size="3"][size="2"][size="2"][size="2"][size="2"]

Quote

[/size][/size][/size][/size][/size]Function#4[/size][/size][size="2"][size="2"]—subjective [/size][/size][size="2"][size="2"]sensoring[/size][/size][size="2"][size="2"]([/size][/size] [size="2"][size="2"]):[/size][/size][size="2"][size="2"]a good place is the place where I have good sensations, where I feelgood. [/size][/size][size="2"][size="2"]Apat on the shoulder, a good meal – and he is all yours, this is hisidea of a [/size][/size][size="2"][size="2"]perfectworld[/size][/size][size="2"][size="2"],he feels great where these conditions are met, he is in trance. Givehim some more of the same treatment – and he falls asleep, goesinto a deeper trance. People of this type are especially suggestiblethrough sensations. It is enough to say a word about somebody’shealth, and he gets self-conscious, thinking about his health he mayget carried away. They tend to apply everything they hear tothemselves, information may not even be related to them but theyimmediately think about their own center of the universe. [/size][/size][size="2"][size="2"]Peopleof this type are rather hypochondriac.[/size][/size]

[size="2"][size="2"]Onthe other hand, these people [/size][/size][size="2"][size="2"]arethe easiest to treat. They trust the doctor.[/size][/size][size="2"][size="2"]What do the extrasensory healers do? They ask their patient, “Doyou feel the warmth in the knee area?” - "Yes." - “Does the knee hurt?” - “Yeah, it does.” - “Well … now youfeel the warmth intensifying, it is getting warmer. And now I ampulling it out… do you feel it?” - “Yes, it goes away…” -“OK, I throw it away completely … feel better?” - "It isbetter". - “Does it hurt now?” - “It does not!”[/size][/size]

[size="2"][size="2"]Peopleof this type may be effectively treated[/size][/size][size="2"][size="2"]by means of mild suggestion. [/size][/size][size="2"][size="2"]Herethe mechanism of psychosomatics[/size][/size][size="2"][size="2"]works in both ways. [/size][/size][size="2"][size="2"]Aperson of this type may think up an illness, and to treat it isnecessary to think up a way to "unthink" it, the[/size][/size][size="2"][size="2"]approach should be based on the person's sensations. [/size][/size][size="2"][size="2"]Themain thing[/size][/size][size="2"][size="2"]here is that the person should feel something. Everything depends onthe system of beliefs that he accepts. Well, what system of beliefsdo we have here? A biological power myth? Very well![size="3"][size="3"][size="2"]

[/size]
[/size][/size] [size="3"][size="3"]lol ENFps are gullible infants with no common sense.[/size][/size] [size="3"][size="3"][size="2"][size="2"][size="3"][size="2"][size="2"][size="2"][size="2"]

Quote

[/size][/size][/size][/size][/size]Function#-4[/size][/size][size="2"][size="2"]— objective sensoring ([/size][/size] [size="2"][size="2"]):[/size][/size][size="2"][size="2"]the fear of a complete form, fear of an [/size][/size][size="2"][size="2"]action[/size][/size][size="2"][size="2"].[/size][/size][size="2"][size="2"]Afence he is building has been under construction for ten years, butthe last nail may never be[/size][/size][size="2"][size="2"]hammered in; [/size][/size][size="2"][size="2"]hehas been writing his thesis for fifteen years[/size][/size][size="2"][size="2"],but it is still unfinished because it is 'imperfect' – still [/size][/size][size="2"][size="2"]morestudying needs to be done[/size][/size][size="2"][size="2"],some cross-checking [/size][/size][size="2"][size="2"]is[/size][/size][size="2"][size="2"]needed… etc.[/size][/size] [size="2"][size="2"]A[/size][/size][size="2"][size="2"]Huxley[/size][/size][size="2"][size="2"]frequently lives in the world of [/size][/size][size="2"][size="2"]the[/size][/size][size="2"][size="2"]unfinished forms, imperfect objects; [/size][/size][size="2"][size="2"]andhe is[/size][/size][size="2"][size="2"]constantly struggling (unlike[/size][/size][size="2"][size="2"]a Don Quixote[/size][/size][size="2"][size="2"])with this imperfection. To get a result from [/size][/size][size="2"][size="2"]a[/size][/size] [size="2"][size="2"]Huxley[/size][/size][size="2"][size="2"]it is necessary to put strict deadline. Otherwise the work will be[/size][/size][size="2"][size="2"]procrastinatedindefinitely, he will continue to alter, add, and improve things…[/size][/size][size="2"][size="2"]But there is no limit to perfection! This trait should be taken intoaccount in a working environment. Knowing this trait a [/size][/size][size="2"][size="2"]Huxley[/size][/size][size="2"][size="2"]often seeks a job where work deadlines are stipulated 'by default'.This could be, for example, teaching.[/size][/size][size="2"]

[/size]


It's apt enough, but it's connection to Se devaluing isn't really explained thoroughly enough[/size][/size][/size][/size][/size][/size][/size][/size][/size][/size][/size][/size][/size][/size][/size][/size][/size][/size][/size][/size][/size][/size][/size][/size][/size][/size][/size][/size]

[ArchonAlarion]

This part of the Te section on the ENFp description fits Juju so good lol:

"A Huxley is always ready to argue, asserting his ideals, his world view until they prove to everyone that they are right.These people often adhere to a school or a doctrine. Having accepted a picture of the world, they advocate and actively popularize the adopted doctrine."

[Ashton]

I didn't see myself much in the ENTj profile description. Except the thing about being able to sustain long-term periods of being alone.

[discojoe]

I think the LSI description is accurate, but I think it only describes one type of LSI, leaving out the more cerebral, cautious, and open-minded representatives such as myself. I'm certainly not reckless and I definitely do not respond with physical aggression if someone totally rejects my worldview, though I do get angry. I also don't ignore external reality in favor of the way I personally see things. I think a lot of LSIs are more like me, more reasonable and open to new information, more adaptable. I may barge in and belligerently assert my beliefs at first, but I pride myself on having the strength to admit when I am wrong. My mind can be changed by legitimate, logical counterpoints.

[necromancer]

Reading Reinin's book just made me more confused. It raised more questions than it answered. I also raised these questions over on the 16types but didn't get a whole lot of response there.

It seems the way in which Reinin describes several of the dichotomies is very different from how they are described in Wikisocion. So I’m confused. In particular, the reasonable/resolute dichotomy is described very differently between the two sources.
Here’s what Reinin says:

The reasonable – the resolute. The reasonable ones consider the potential opportunities, in their relationships they are giving, they want to please and be interesting (sexually also). The resolute are mostly focused on the immediate experience of a relationship, and the pleasure that he/she is getting. This distinction is true in the intimate sphere also. The two types may also be named the givers and the takers.

There’s no mention of any of this in the wikisocion descriptions. In wikisocion, the focus is on whether or not one’s natural state is more relaxed (reasonable/judicious) or mobilized (resolute/decisive)


The tactical/strategic dichotomy is another example of how the two sources define it very differently. According to Reinin:

The tacticians – the strategists. This attribute becomes evident in people's relationships. The tacticians are capable of providing immediate support, they can advise on tactics and give short-term financial support. They can give advice on practical behavior in specific situations. They never check up on you to see if you have used their advice. The strategists are inclined to give strategic advice; they offer their energy and time. They are not as flexible in the area of compromise. They can grasp a situation as a whole at the first glance.

Now compare that to Wikisocion

Tacticals
1.Focus on methods, and manipulate them, with goals unsettled.
2.Goals are defined by, and modified to fit methods.
3.Prefers to expand options. Doesn't like to have too few of them.

Strategicals
1.Focus on goals, and manipulate them, with methods unsettled.
2.Methods are defined by, and modified to fit goals.
3.Prefers to defend goals. Doesn't like to be forced to deviate from them.

Now look at rational-irrational. According to Reinin:

Irrationality - rationality. This pair is also one of Jung's basic pairs; it corresponds to Krechmer's cyclothymic - schizothymic pair. There are eight rational and eight irrational types in a socion. The rational types are characterized by a subtle change in sensitivity, whereas the irrational types – by fluctuations of mood. The rational types are more focused and stable. The irrational types are characterized by a roller coaster of emotions varying from elation to depression, abundance of energy to exhaustion. The extreme stage of the irrationality is known as the manic depressive syndrome. Here we do not touch upon any of the aspects of the 'big psychiatry', as we consider only people with basically wholesome mentality, who are integrated in the society: here we stay within the 'psychological norm'.

In Wikisocion, no mention is made at all about fluctuations of mood. In Reinin, it’s the only thing. In socionics.us there are a long list comparing traits of rationals and irrationals and mood fluctuation is just one small part of it.



See what I mean about the differences in dichotomy descriptions? Which approach is correct? How do they relate to each other? Did the Russian translation get so botched that the interpretations in Wikisocion and other English sources become very different from what Reinin intended?

[necromancer]

Here's some more rambling:



Reinin describes compliant/stubborn (yielding/obstinate) like this:


The Compliant – the stubborn (the terms offered by A.Augustinavičiūtė). The compliant types are inclined to avoid conflicts, they are hardworking, and they strive for good relationships. The stubborn ones' have a motto “attack is the best defense.” they would not concede easily.

Here’s Wikisocion’s take on it:

Yielding types
1.Resources are 'sacred', but ideas are freely shared and manipulated.
2.Easily aware of the boundaries between their and others' interests.
3.Protect their resources to the point of conflict, and their reaction may be unduly strong.
4.“If I know I can't do something, I won't and will forget all about it.”

Obstinate types
1.Ideas are 'sacred', but resources are freely shared and manipulated.
2.Easily aware of the boundaries between their and others' resources.
3.Guard their interests from intrusions, and their reaction to such intrusions may be quite sharp.
4.“I won't abandon my interests just because my resources are inadequate, but simply work towards improving my resources until they ARE adequate.”


Item #2 in the yielding description I suppose could relate to Reinin’s idea that yielding types want to strive for good relationships. Item #3 in the obstinate description sorta relates to Reinin’s idea about obstinate types not wanting to concede easily. However, yielding types may not concede easily when their resources are threatened (#3). Reinin makes no mention of resource protecting vs. interest protecting.

Here’s Reinin’s description of the democrat/aristrocrat:

The Democrats – the aristocrats. The attribute manifests itself as a universal characteristic of fellowship. The democrats find it easy to establish horizontal relationships, get on friendly terms, become friends and partners. The aristocrats are more aware of the hierarchies; they keep people at a distance, more prone to establishing vertical relationships.
During the experiments these groups are easy to distinguish. The aristocrats try to distance themselves from others as much as possible, they never interrupt anybody; democrats speak all at once, frequently neglecting the common norms of politeness.


Here’s Wikisocion’s:

Aristocrats
1.Inclined to perceive and define themselves, and others, through groups they belong to; however, such groups are perceived and defined by the Aristocrats themselves, not necessarily accepting those groupings as defined by others or by social conventions.
2.Their initial attitude to another person is influenced by their attitude to the group they see the person as belonging to.
3.Tend to attribute common qualities to members of their circles of contacts, and define such circles by those same qualities.
4.Inclined to use expressions that generalize group features.
Example: feeling energized by identification with a group, as in a team within a company, sports team, and the like; and seeing others foremost through the prism of the other teams they belong to.

Democrats
1.Perceive and define themselves, and others, primarily through individual/personal qualities: interesting, pleasant, unpleasant, good-looking, etc, not in connection to any group they may belong to.
2.Form their relationships/attitudes toward other persons based on the latter's own individual characteristics, not with base on their relationships to groups of any kind, nor on their relationships to representatives of such groups.
3.Not inclined to perceive their acquaintances as representatives of a certain "circle of contacts" that supposedly possesses qualities inherent to people of that circle.
4.Not inclined to use expressions that generalize group features.
Example: an individual building up his circle of personal connections, within an organization, that totally bypassses or ignores the organization's formal structure, but not with that circle being perceived as any kind of group or unit by any of the persons involved.


Reinin doesn’t mention about individual vs. group orientation like Wikisocion. Again I’m not entirely clear how these two different interpretations relate to one other. Why would identifying yourself through groups (Wikisocion) imply distancing yourself from others as much as possible (Reinin)? Maybe if you belong to different groups but what if you’re in the same group? Why would democrats interrupt each other more? I don’t quite get it.

One more thing to mention. Reinin’s extraverted intuition description seems very different from Wikisocion or socionics.us

Here’s Reinin’s description:
-Objective intuition.The order of events from the beginning to the end, i.e. the sets of events known beforehand, the schedule. Potential opportunities. Behavior program, the way of life, the rhythm of life. Scenario of any action, acting in accordance to predetermined scenario.

Positive objective intuition (+). Integrity of the environment: everything is known from beginning to end; the world as if rolls on straight tracks; there is a schedule; the world is predictable, people are predictable, too.

Inverse objective intuition (-). Infringement of the integrity of environment: unexpectedness, breach of schedule; the result of events is unpredictable, or an unexpected event.


Compare that with Wikisocion:

is generally associated with the ability to recognize possibilities, create new opportunities and new beginnings, recognize talent and natural propensities in others, reconcile differing perspectives and viewpoints, rapidly generate ideas, and be led by one's intellectual curiosity and stimulate curiosity in others.

And with Socionics.us
potentiality of objects: inherent possibilities, purpose, abilities, talents, content, values (socionics.us)

Reinin talks about extraverted intuition and its connection with predictability and schedules. I've never seen an Ne base type to be very concerned with predictability or schedules.

[crispy]

I see no contradictions in any of the dichotomies listed. They should all be correct. The author of each thought that the focus of his/hers was the easiest to understand. It isn't surprising different people would choose different focuses.
Wikisocion would do well to include all these extra descriptions on the dichotomies as we find them from different socionics material.

[Ashton]

Hrm. Interesting contrasts WL. Seems kind of confusing to me a bit too.

There's some expanded Reinin descriptions here as well that cover some things not on Wikisocion: http://forum.socioni...in-dichotomies/

[aiss]

necromancer, on 02 November 2010 - 02:04 PM, said:

In Wikisocion, no mention is made at all about fluctuations of mood. In Reinin, it’s the only thing. In socionics.us there are a long list comparing traits of rationals and irrationals and mood fluctuation is just one small part of it.

See what I mean about the differences in dichotomy descriptions? Which approach is correct? How do they relate to each other? Did the Russian translation get so botched that the interpretations in Wikisocion and other English sources become very different from what Reinin intended?

Reinin dichotomies have been widely criticized, and apparently he's changed his mind about some things as well, though I can't recall a source for that at the moment. I wouldn't rely on them, or rather on all the described traits being actually related to them, even if they are to sociotype.

Mood fluctuations are mentioned in Constructivist/Emotivist dichotomy, but in my experience they seem more correlated with Dynamic.

[Gilly]

Wow, by Reinin's description I am vastly Aristocratic. I feel awkward when people want to be, like, "buddies." shudder...