Reinin Dichotomies: Study Results¶
Reinin dichotomies or Reinin traits refer to a set of 15 type dichotomies that were mathematically justified by Grigoriy Reinin. For a table of socionics types and dichotomies see overview of Reinin traits. This study was conducted at Dynamic Socionics Center headed by V. Mironov.
Original publication: http://www.dynamicsocionics.ru/napolnenie-priznakov-reynina.html
Introduction¶
Additional typological attributes, whose existence has been theoretically proven by G.R. Reinin in 1984, are an important achievement in Socionics as a science. Since the moment of their publication, there have been many attempts to describe their real world manifestations, as well as attempts to prove their absence. Among those it is possible to cite work of G. R. Reynin himself [4,5,7] and A. Augustinavichyute [2], and also V.I. Stratiyevskoy, V.V. Gulenko [3], N.L. Savitsky, E.S. Filatovoy [8], and many others. However the reasons for our research were seminars by T.N. Prokofeva in St.Petersburg, in the course of which participants became acquainted with results of her long-term work in this area.
The purpose of the research of the group was an attempt to reveal independent existence of each Reinin attribute, and also to check newly obtained results with results of previous experiments. Since the attribute groups are dichotomous, it was expected to obtain in each case two expressed poles that would be manifested independently from other attributes of the participants (such as Jungian functions and other Reinin attributes groups).
The approach used was “the method of inverse problem” (G. R. Reinin [4]) and consists of the following: the group of subjects, whose sociotypes did not cause differences in the estimation of experts, was divided into two parts in accordance with the specific attribute being estimated (observed). After that all participants in turns spoke on the assigned neutral theme: first the group that represented one pole of the Reinin group would speak, then group that represented the other, for example, first spoke Dynamics, then Statics. This way, differences in their statements, their behavior, or the absence of them came to light, as did the nature of the differences. Speech features (words used, prevalence of those or other parts of speech, the form of construction of phrases), nonverbal reactions, the specific character of the described behavior by subjects, the specific character of the observed behavior by experts, expressed and displayed positions, etc. were observed.
Besides the members of the work group, who also appeared in the role of experts, representatives of “missing” types were invited and were subjected to the same approach that the members of the work group were subjected to. In total the number of those participating was around 100 people with no less then 20 people for each attribute.
Here are the results of our study.
Subjectivists | Objectivists¶
Subjectivists¶
Subjectivists are good at noticing the general emotional background that accompanies contact with people (For example: enthusiasm, fun, stress and so on). Fun (as, probably, every other emotional experience) for them is allocated into a separate aspects of activity (to a question “what were you doing” they can answer “we were having fun”—they perceive emotional engagement as a separate type of activity)
Subjectivist types do not perceive “getting to know somebody” as a special kind of activity, in contrast to Serious types, for whom it is a kind of a ritual. They know very well why they are getting acquainted (the purpose of this acquaintance is interest, business, travel, and so on). In contrast to the Objectivist types, they do not divide the process of getting acquainted into consecutive stages. They immediately establish the necessary emotional distance in contact and can regulate it as needed. To bridge the gap between poorly acquainted people in a group they amp up the emotional tone—this can be mutually experienced happiness or misfortune. The “name” of the person is of secondary relevance for them. Interest towards the person and relations is primary here, thus Merry types do not consider formality as a necessary part of becoming acquainted with someone.
The Subjectivist, in contrast to the Objectivist, is not inclined to derive “objectively accurate” rules and regularities, generalizing for this purpose his own experiences and experiences of others. Instead, the Subjectivist assumes that other people have different criteria and their own views on any situation, therefore he determines whether his or someone else’s actions were correct or incorrect by comparing them with his “subjective” view—he evaluates them in accordance to his personal concepts, “his system”, his intentions, and so on. Subjectivist are inclined to propose (or impose) not the “correct way” or another way to do things, but an entire conceptual framework on the subject i.e. they do not say “Do this differently” but rather “Look at it in another way”. They do not think, in contrast to Objectivists, that in every situation there exists only one “objectively correct/true” way of doing something—in their opinion, there are many different ways of looking at and approaching a given situation. When they feel something was done incorrectly, they will likely ask: “What are you doing?” (In contrast to Objectivists who are likely to ask “Who does it this way?”). When they speak of optimality, they mean optimality within the framework of their idea or concept, within the framework of their subjective approach (from which point of view is it most optimal and in comparison to what). Therefore they strive to contrast other people’s views to their own and to explain their position (to verify concepts): “If this is what is meant, we do this, if something else is meant, we do it differently.”
“Comparison and verification of concepts” is a common phenomenon among Subjectivists. It concerns not only their methods, but also their understanding, terminology, and so on. Subjectivists are attuned to the fact that different people might understand and interpret different concepts and terms differently. They perceive terminology as well as actions of other people as a part of the subjective concept inseparable from personal opinion, position, intent, etc.: “So we have agreed that we shall call it this way”. In contrast to Objectivists who perceive terminology as “objective”, Subjectivists understand personal differences behind terminilogy (this applies even to well established terms) and they attempt to compare and verify them (“Well you say this, but I think it’s not so, but so-and-so”).
Lexicon: when discussing actions and joint activities they use expressions such as “From my point of view”, “According to my understanding”, “To my knowledge”, “personal criteria”, “it corresponds to my understanding” “I have concluded” “he insisted” and so on. They describe verbal communication in detail—how their intervention in the situation is transpiring or why it’s not happening.
Objectivists¶
Serious types poorly recognize common emotional background; they do not perceive emotionally infused conceptions (for example “fun”) as separate and substitute them with interpretations that have no direct emotional elements. (Instead of the word “fun” they may use “entertainment”, “leisure”, “pleasure”, and so on). They do not perceive emotional exchange as a separate occurrence and are inclined to mix it with other mutual matters (They can have fun while working, or engage in serious affairs while having fun.)
For Serious types, becoming acquainted with a new person constitutes a special ritual necessary for bridging the distance (If this ritual did not take place, then Serious types do not consider themselves to be acquainted, for example: “We did not introduce ourselves”). In such situations, for the Serious types it is easier if the degree of emotional distance was externally predetermined i.e. if it was set by some sort of “mediator”, whether this be a person or circumstances of a given situation—this allows them to skip the first stages of becoming acquainted and move on to a closer dialogue and contact. For bridging the distance between strangers, Serious types create certain rules or rituals (or they use already existing ones) for the step-by-step association. They know the process of becoming acquainted very well (how a stranger becomes a familiar). For association, Serious type needs to know the name, title, any other information that describes the new person—therefore formal introduction for them is a very important stage of getting acquainted with someone.
Objectivists have a notion of what constitutes “objectively known” facts, rules, laws, regularities held in general (common) experience; in their perception there exist rules and guidelines that are “true in general” and “always correct”. They suppose that other people can have their own views and positions, but do not consider that any action can be viewed as correct/incorrect only from a certain point of view (they allow for the existence of “objectively correct” actions). Therefore, from the point of view of an Objectivist, actions can be different—subjective, determined by personal preferences and motives, and objective, where there is only one “correct”, “most effective” way to do something. Objectivists define actions as correct or incorrect contrasting them to their representation of what is “objectively correct”. When they think that there is only one optimal solution, they are inclined to propose (or impose) ways to accomplish an activity (not their views or concepts like Subjectivists) which they think are the best: “No, do it the right way”. When speaking of optimality, they speak of optimality in general—“objective optimality” (they consider that they know the “correct”, “generally optimal” ways of doing something). In joint activities they offer the “most effective” way of doing something. In disagreement they do not compare and verify concepts, but instead check whether the other person knows the “correct”, “generally accepted”, “established” concepts and terms.
In contrast to Subjectivists, Objectivists are not inclined to compare and verify concepts. They assume that these can have only one unique interpretation (“correct”, “accurate” one)—often they do not think about the fact that the other person may be interpreting them differently, within a different conceptual framework. They operate with concepts such as “objective reality”, “unequivocal facts”, and do not attempt to verify concepts: “This is called with this term”. They consider that they know the “right” way of doing things, how something “really is” (they acknowledge only a certain picture of the world, one that is “objectively true”): “You say it’s like this, while in reality is like that”.
In description of actions or in discussion of joint activities instead of “explanatory” lexicon they give a lot of examples (all “correct” and “incorrect” modes of actions are depicted in these examples).
Notes¶
In this research, the hypothesis about the quadra related nature of entertainment has been show to be untrue. Also proven to be untrue was the widespread conviction that people of Serious types will not publicly display and behave in a “childish” manner. Probably in the majority of such cases (for example when adult people roll themselves down a snow hill), the situation serves as an intermediary and relaxes the existing interpersonal boundaries.
Hypotheses¶
Dichotomy Ethics-Logic strengthens one of the attributes of this trait: Ethics strengthens Subjectivism, while Logic—Objectivism.
Examples¶
Merry/Subjectivists: “Fun is a lot of emotion… company of friends, where we can exchange news, possibly go have something to eat, sing a song” “Fun is getting involved, when you actively participate. When you watch or read something, this is educational, but fun is an active state of constant excitement, something one cannot confuse with leisure (restful state)… perhaps fun for me is an animated dialogue that (as opposed to a fight, quarrel, etc.) is pleasant” “Reading books, opera - this is not fun… fun is heightened vitality” “Fun is a state of liberation when everyone is not being very serious” “Fun is pleasure, recklessness, everyone participates, some boundaries may get crossed” “If I’m in a company of new people and nobody introduces me, for me it is not a problem to introduce myself” “The majority of people with whom I chat, I may not know their full name” “The process of coming into contact can consist of any steps, becoming acquainted is not necessary” “For me, in company, the names of others are not important” “I remembered what his name was only after a week, even though we had already passionately kissed (about meeting her future husband)” “When I see that someone doing something wrong, I first have to check if that is any of my business. If it concerns me, then my first reaction is to step back and let him have enough… I have my own criteria for how things should be. Other people may have their own criteria” “First, put down the axe, then explain why you are doing that” “I assumed that I have said all that was relevant to the given theme/topic”
Serious/Objectivists: “It is difficult for me to distinguish work activities apart from fun. Fun is difficult to define …” “I approach everything seriously, even rest” “It is always possible to find something entertaining/zany in the serious, and vice versa” “Studying should be fun. Work without an entertaining element is impossible” “What constitutes “fun” to me is not clear, what is leisure - that is clear, what is entertainment - that is also clear” “It is important that I get introduced when I’m in company of people I never met before, or better yet, that they have been told a little about myself” “I engage another person on conditions that he/she has proposed, I do not engage the person if I do not know whether the contact will be “pleasant” for him/her” “I do not like it when other people “thrust” themselves upon me or when it is done to others, for example, if suddenly my aunt whom I’m seeing for the first time starts calling me “honey” or use some other endearing expression” “The name is important. If a person does not state their name, it often means that they do not want to have a conversation” “If it is done the wrong way? Oy! It is easier for me to grab it and do it myself than to waste my time explaining. In my opinion there is only one way to “hammer a nail”” “There are things with which it is clear that some methods are futile/fruitless and that there are more effective ways of doing it. It’s very irritating when a person consistently fails to see this and keeps choosing inappropriate methods” “When I see something performed ineffectively it makes my stomach churn” “It is painful for me to see something that contradicts common sense and I can do nothing about it. If I can interfere with the situation, I will do so regardless of whether or not it concerns me” “The methods habitual to the person within the framework of his/her experience are not the same thing as objective method of doing things (this is evident by the results)”.
Judicious | Decisive¶
Judicious¶
Judicious types are relaxed in their natural state; they mobilize and concentrate only when needing to accomplish some objective. After the task has been completed, they demobilize again. This state of demobilization is the natural state of the Judicious types.
For Judicious types, it is mandatory that before they engage in some important task, they spend some time in this natural state of “slackness” (relax and distract themselves)—the better they rest, the better they will subsequently mobilize and concentrate at the crucial moments, and the better their overall performance will be. The more difficult the task ahead of them—the more crucial and necessary prior rest becomes.
A transition from a state of mobilization (high activity) to a state of slackness (low activity) for Judicious types does not present a problem. However, they can experience difficulties while trying to “mobilize” themselves (it is difficult for them to leave their natural state). Because of this, they often require some kind of stimulus to get mobilized (they are inclined to put themselves in situations where external factors either force them to act or someone else acts for them)
Judicious types tend to divide large tasks into several stages. Then they mobilize to carry out each stage, and in between revert back to their natural relaxed state (small matters they can do in a single push).
They become aware of their state of readiness when they have just begun considering taking action i.e. at the most minimal level or mobilization. They are poorly aware of moment they undertook some decision, often do not remember it.
Judicious types are better aware of the preparatory stage and consider it more valuable (this is the stage of discussion, presenting options, choosing between them, and so on). They invest more time and effort into this stage. Stages when oneself comes to a decision and executes it are as if implied—they are considered less important and given less attention.
In regards to work, Judicious types appreciate a certain level of convenience, freedom, and comfort. Actual place of work (the environment in which they work) they are inclined to evaluate from the point of view of its conditions. Judicious types are not inclined to renounce their conveniences—they are not ready to sacrifice their working conditions for the sake of the results (for instance a monetary reward) “Well I simply can’t do without my peace!”
Speech peculiarities: Judicious types describe how and why they came to a certain decision, but do not highlight the moment when they undertook it; in conversations about work they speak of working conditions (convenience, breaks, proximity to their place of residence, and so on)
Decisive¶
Decisive types will often mobilize before it is really necessary, as if they are subconsciously preparing for accomplishing upcoming tasks; after accomplishing a task Decisive types remain in a state of mobilization for some time afterwards. A state of readiness is their natural state.
It is necessary for Decisive types to stay in their natural sate of mobilization up until the end of an important task—the more effective the mobilization, the more fulfilling their rest will be (“If you don’t go to work—you cannot rest”)
After completing the necessary task, Decisive types have trouble leaving their state of mobilization (frequently this is expressed by aimless, thoughtless activity). Therefore, Decisive types often require subsequent additional, external stimuli (for instance, they may plan a diversion: “After the test, I will certainly go see a movie”) or turn to other people to help them relax and forget about their actual work.
Decisive types are not inclined to divide upcoming large tasks into separate stages. They will instead stay mobilized for the entire duration of the task so that the task could be accomplished as a whole. While the task is still unfinished, they maintain a state of internal readiness.
Decisive types become aware of their own state of mobilization at the moment they make a decision i.e. when the mobilization reaches a sufficiently high level. They are aware of the moment of they undertake a decision and remember it (“I have decided that…”).
Decisive types better recognize the stage of their involvement, starting from the moment that they made a decision. They invest more time and effort into carrying out the task, since they consider the actual work to be the most important part. They appreciate far less and are far less aware of the preparation and planning stages than the subsequent decisions and their implementation.
Decisive types are inclined to work for the sake of the result (for example, a reward or bonus). In contrast to the Judicious types, they can renounce their comforts and conveniences for this. They evaluate their place of work by looking at what returns they get for the effort they invested (including monetary rewards).
Speech features: Decisive types underscore the moments of making a decision and in detail speak of stages of its implementation; in conversation about work they speak about its “fruits”, decisions and results; in speech the word “money” is often heard.
Notes¶
The radical difference between Judicious and Decisive types is in the development of the cycle “mobilization—activity—relaxation” while performing any difficult, critical task. The concept of “natural state” does not refer to the whole process of existence of an individual—it refers only to a certain point in that cycle. The natural state of Judicious types is relaxation, slackness; the natural state of Decisive types is readiness, mobilization. Both types can distinguish between these states through contrast and clearly differentiate between them. They consciously leave their natural “base” state and “by force” bring themselves into the required state—Judicious types become aware of their state of mobilization, while Decisive types become aware of their state of rest.
Hypotheses¶
For the Decisive sensing types, mobilization has something to do with sensing—it is something physiological, a corporal condition (mobilization for them is perceived as bodily tension). Decisive intuitive types experience (and accordingly describe) a condition of mobilization that likened to internal readiness or inspiration. In a similar fashion, relaxation for Judicious sensing types is a physical sensation/condition—an absence of pressure and stress on the body. Judicious intuitive types primarily feel this certain rhythm, of alternation of opposite states. In other words, relaxation or slackness can be perceived as divergence of attention, while mobilization as focus, as convergence of attention.
Decisive types view decisions they undertook as their own, and circumstances as surrounding factors in making their choice. Judicious frequently view their decisions as something they were compelled or forced to undertake by the circumstances.
Judicious types better than Decisive can distribute their energy and estimate their reserves and expenditures, while Decisive types can maintain a high level of “charge” for prolonged periods of time.
Decisive types prefer following a “campaign” method in work—when it’s required (for example, for a large reward) work intensively for days and weeks, but then have time for rest and leisure. For the Judicious types “campaign” method of work is unnatural, they prefer to carry out work in “small portions”.
Extrovert-introvert orientation strengthens the manifestation of this dichotomy: extroversion strengthens Decisiveness and introversion strengthens Judiciousness.
Examples¶
Judicious: “I don’t study the day before a big exam. I go to take a walk, read a little, etc.” “I don’t purposefully relax, but neither do I stay up until 6 o’clock” “Everything is designed in such a manner that after 10pm all is finished. I spend my evening as usual and why interfere with that?” “If I’m very tired—I just rest however much is necessary” “You should not work long on one problem, postpone it for another time” “Dealing with the moment of making a decision is complicated. It is not kept track of. The stage of preparation and the act of deciding occurs automatically, what happens afterwards is not related to it. Deciding is in itself an action—one can always return to it” “Thinking things over—this is the real work, after which the act of making the decision itself is not given attention. If it is necessary to do something else… I can feel in the back of my mind the circumstances that will force me to do it. I put myself into such situations” “There is a primary selection: is this necessary or not necessary, and from there things develop. The decision is somehow made, but in unconscious manner, and even if it is accepted, that does not mean that I will get around to it.” “Consideration is very nice—you still don’t need to decide. It’s even better if you don’t have to anything afterwards.” “Before deciding on something, discussions are plentiful, but which decisions are undertaken I cannot keep a track of.” “I modeled it in several versions—it is as if virtually I have already done it” “When some task is assigned, I carefully consider it for a long time. There isn’t a conclusive moment for me when I finally decide to do something” “The main thing in work is freedom of organization, freedom of choice” “The opportunity to recharge is very important, I don’t want to burn out” “I need a comfortable workplace which would be solely mine.”
Decisive: “First, lets make a push and do it—then we shall rest” “I feel terribly frustrated when someone tries to distract or engage me before an exam. Why? It messes with my concentration, to put it another way, it messes with my “inspiration”” “Sometimes I get so tired that I can’t even sleep from the exhaustion.” “I was writing my diploma for there days straight, then I came home and just collapsed.” “Making a decision constitutes a separate moment, any doubts and fluctuations take place before that.” “I always keep track of what decision I make. Every time I make a decision it’s like a burden of responsibilities falls on my shoulders.” “I will not get stuck on the process of discussion and consideration… it will be concluded with a decision.” “If I decided watch a movie, then I will watch it” “Naturally, I remember when I made that choice” “When a person speaks of something, I perceive it as a signal to action even if it was just a suggestion… The decision to act is just an intermediate stage. If a decision is made, it does not mean that something has been done” “I don’t understand—have we decided on something or not?” “Work should be interesting, but payment—that is of course considered.” “I work for the money, I don’t consider leisure a part of it. I work as much as they pay me.”
Static | Dynamic¶
Static¶
Static types view reality as sets of episodes, scenes, pictures. The consciousness of a Static type is oriented towards perceiving these separate, individual states, and not a continuous flows of changes.
When static types give descriptions of events, they are inclined to generalize the event itself and treat that event as just another event among similar events (” I usually celebrate New year…”).
In stories told by Statics, there is usually one main character who is the central focus of the story; this almost never changes in the course of the story.
In stories of Statics descriptions of states dominate over descriptions of actions, flow of events. In addition to this, transition from one state to another is not continuous but rather jumps from one state to another.
Lexicon: frequent usage of “to be” as a catenative verb (“to become” “to appear to be”), frequent use of impersonal proposals with modal verbs (“to want”, “to can”; “it is possible to make” instead of “I will make”), usage of no-verb constructions.
Dynamic¶
For Dynamic types, events are viewed as a continuous sequence, which is not fragmented into separate episodes. The consciousness of a Dynamic type is oriented towards perceiving continuous flows of changes as opposed to discrete states.
When describing an event, Dynamic types are not inclined to generalize and describe the concrete event that has occurred (“Last New year I went to…”). In their stories, one gets the impression that the Dynamic type is at the center of the event that he or she is describing, “drawn” into it.
In stories by Dynamics usually all characters at some point become protagonist, assume a central role; this role may even be given to inanimate objects.
In stories of Dynamics descriptions of processes dominate (that which is occurring, transpiring, going on, rather than something that has already occurred).
Lexicon: they use verbs of action which do not have a direct object (“went”, “made”, “brought”, “settle”, “cheered themselves”, “cried a little”). In their stories they use many semantic verbs which express actions of the storyteller and other characters in the story and interaction between all of them.
Notes¶
We can draw an analogy to grammatical construction of sentences. The difference between Static and Dynamic speech is analogous to the difference between different kinds of verbs in Russian: Static’s speech corresponds to verbs of perfect (certain past) kind (“I have made”), and Dynamic’s speech to verbs of imperfect (not certain past) kind (“I did”). In English language Static speech corresponds to simple (Indefinite) tenses and Dynamic to long (Continuous) tenses. It is possible to draw another more technical analogy: modern digital cameras can save their contents in two different ways: they can either save them as segments or record a digital video. In a similar way the surrounding reality is fixed in the human mind: Statics “record” reality as separate packets (“photographs”), Dynamics—as a continuous “video”.
Examples¶
Statics: “During New Year I am exhausted” “It would be desirable to conduct the New Year…” “It was sad (boring, interesting)” “I stayed at home” “We were on a trip” “This holiday was better in comparison to the previous one”
Dynamics: “The Christmas tree smells nice” “The house is filled with holiday spirit” “This New Year they drove to the ski area where they skied all day long” “We emptied the whole bottle” “We gathered together, sang songs, celebrated” “In the New year I expected a miracle, but was inevitably greeted by a disappointment”.
Process | Result¶
As a result of “renaming” of this dichotomy by V. Gulenko, confusion arose. In A. Augustinavichjute [2] and G. Reinin [5] this dichotomy is called “left - right” (Leftists types are ILE, SEI, EIE, LSI, SEE, ILI, LSE and EII; Rightists types are ESE, LII, SLE, IEI, LIE, ESI, IEE and SLI). We utilized in this article the more contemporary “opposite” designations of V. Gulenko and T. Prokofieva (Leftists/Result types are ESE, LII, SLE, IEI, LIE, ESI, IEE and SLI, Rightists/Process types are - ILE, SEI, EIE, LSI, SEE, ILI, LSE and EII). As the names of the attributes do not determine the attributes themselves, the changing of the names is an insignificant detail, but still mentioned in case one encounters different classifications.
Process¶
Process types perceive themselves “within the process”, they “immerse” into it, become a part of it. Because of this, they have great difficulty managing several processes at once.
Process types perceive the process as something whole, integral, inseparable. They tend to follow through its course without switching, as it is difficult for them to return to previously started then abandoned processes (for them, returning back to the track from which they “switched off” and continuing where they left off is equivalent to starting anew).
Lexicon: frequent use of word “process”.
Result¶
Result types place themselves “outside of a process”, they dissociate from it. For them the situation, the process (what they are doing) is something external to themselves, managed from aside. Because of this, Result types can deal with multiple tasks/affairs simultaneously, tracing the beginning and end of each (it is easier for them to oversee several processes at one time).
Result types are inclined to make intermediate and final estimates, to sum up the results or outputs. They are oriented towards the result i.e. the finishing point of a process. They experience discomfort if the matter in which they are involved does not have a clearly delineated result. This happens because these types put themselves outside of a process, thus they poorly monitor its progression—they use intermediate and final “result” estimates to track the natural flow of the process.
Lexicon: in speech they often use words “beginning”, “end”, “stage”, “interval”, “result”.
Notes¶
The basic difference between Process and Result types lies in their approach towards a situation or a process correspondingly from “within” and “without”, while orientation towards “process” or “result” is a secondary aspect of this. For the Result types, making estimations (the summing up of the process) is a tool they are forced to use in order to feel the flow of the process. The Process types, on the other hand, can “hang on” to a process because they do not wish to “switch off” and lose contact before its completion when some outcome is achieved.
The hypothesis about perfectionism of Process types was not confirmed by this experiment. Most likely perfectionism is a personal trait that is not connected to this attribute.
Hypotheses¶
This dichotomy is based on the features of placement and distribution of attention as a mental function. It is possible that Process types have have a greater level of stability and concentration of attention (ability to focus on a single topic for prolonged period of time, even in presence of distractions). Result types show an ability to “distribute” their attention (to simultaneously pay attention to multiple topics) and to “shift” their attention from one topic or activity to another.
Examples¶
Right/process: “Finishing something is not easy, it us also not easy to start something, but the most difficult thing is to return to the middle of something I’ve abandoned long time ago” “I read the book to the end of the chapter and a several pages into the next chapter… the thought of something coming to an end is frightening.” “God forbid that I start a game of solitaire, I will “hang” with it for a long time (regarding a computer game)” “It is difficult to force myself to undertake a task, but afterwards it just rolls forward by itself.”
Left/result: “The matter at hand must be known. If estimations are not final, they must at least be intermediate.” “It is very interesting for me to start or complete a matter… I like visualizing a finished project or task.” “The most horrible thing is when something just won’t end.” “I feel like a juggler; in my hands—several activities (processes). I am aware of two points—the beginning and the end.” “Why can’t you simultaneously listen and eat?”
Positivism | Negativism¶
Positivists¶
Positivists initially pay attention to what is present in a situation (what exists, what is there) what can realistically occur, what can be interpreted as an affirmative manifestation of surrounding world, situations, possibilities, prospects.
Positivists are oriented at what any situation or contact with people can potentially bring to them rather than what they could potentially lose (for example, moving is viewed as an opportunity to gain new acquaintances, friends, rather than primarily from point of view of losing existing friends). For them an orientation to success is more characteristic rather than avoidance of failure.
Positives are better at assimilating affirmative experiences. They are inclined to “convert” negative experiences into positive ones (they try to find the “silver lining”).
They speak more of the positive and try to present negative moments on a positive background (“Yes, this is a problem, but…”—then continue to paint a positive picture). Conversations about the negative (when the other person accentuates deficiencies, absence, impossibility) may be irritating to Positivists.
In speech of Positivists, one can detect mostly affirmative constructions and intonations. If they are giving instructions to someone else, they present them in positive manner: they talk about what can be done or what should be done in different situations (for example, “You can call him only at this-and-this time”) rather than what cannot or should not be done.
Negativists¶
Negativists pay attention to aspects of the situation that are insufficient or lacking, which can be interpreted as seeing the negative prospects of various situations and events.
Negativists orient at what they could potentially lose as a result of a certain situation or contact with other people, rather than what this situation or contact can bring to them (for example, moving for negativists primarily means losing friends). Negativists focus on avoiding failures (the “positive” development of a situation is the fact that nothing negative has happened so far).
Negativists are better at assimilating negating, negative experiences. They are inclined to outline negative sides of affairs.
Negativists are more inclined to speak about negative moments. Positive aspects are presented on a negative background (“Well, this is good, but…”—then mentions what is lacking, what is not right). Negativists are irritated by “excessively positive” attitudes (when another person “forgets” to bring up or haven’t even considered the negative aspects of something).
In speech of negativists there is frequent use of negating expressions (negative pronouns, adverbs, “not” “cannot” “nobody” “never”). For example: “Negative experiences are not always necessary, I don’t need them” “There won’t be an occasion to do anything” “I cannot say that this is not true” etc. If giving instructions they first of all talk about the things to avoid, what should not be done (For example “If you call them at such a time it will be pointless”).
Notes¶
Previous research on this dichotomy was reduced to measuring positive/negative in the “everyday” sense of the word. In our opinion, these attitudes are a consequence of a deeper mechanism: one group perceives and describes something by denoting associated properties (Positivists) while the other group denotes properties that are not associated with it. Positivists describe a subject, individual, phenomenon, attempting to describe it through characteristics inherent in the object, while Negativists focus on properties that do not pertain to the object. The cursory impression of optimism/pessimism being the distinguishing feature of this dichotomy occurs because of this. In reality, both Positivists and Negativists possess these two attitudes and talk equally of “good” and “bad” things. The difference is in the form of presentation—for example, on the same topic of shortcomings: “I cannot say that you have no shortcomings” (negativism) and “You have several shortcomings” (positivism).
Hypotheses¶
The difference in assimilating experiences between Positivists and Negativists arises because Positivists better remember events when they did transpire, rather than events that did not occur, while Negativists are better at remembering events that did not occur, that were absent or lacking (for the Negativist, this absence constitutes an event in itself, they remember this better and draw conclusions).
Examples¶
Positivists: “At first I trust people, distrust needs to be substantiated” “I always believe in a positive outcome. I will most likely talk about positives. I don’t issue warnings of possible failures—why bring people down, may be everything will be ok” “It irritates me when people talk only of character flaws and inadequacies in others” “I try not to give instructions on avoidance or failure” “When giving instructions I avoid giving orders like “Don’t do it! Don’t go!” “Even negative experience can be positive” “I start off by trusting people and then work from there.”
Negativists: “My first reaction to everything is “no!” whatever it might be” “I don’t speak of the positives” “One must take into account all the negative aspects. It goes without saying that people are capable of anything” “If the mood is too good - something is not right” “In my instructions I always give people “negative” orientation points. I foresee all the negative moments and try to make provisions for them” “People in general are good, but it’s better to keep your distance from them” “When I was authoring a textbook, I constructed my proofs “by method of contradiction”” “Most often I bring bad news” “When asked “How’s it going?” I answer “Not well.” “How am I going to entertain myself? Certainly I wouldn’t go to a restaurant, neither a casino … but somewhere out to nature…” “There will be a building there, but that’s not what you’re looking for. After that you will see a street, but don’t take it, continue on your path. Go around the building and don’t use the first two entrances.”
Asking | Declaring¶
Asking¶
Asking types have a tendency to use interrogative intonations. Their statements sound far less categorical than those of declarers.
Asking types are inclined to answer a question with a question. Quite often they begin their story with phrases like “What should I tell you about?…”. They often asks question that serve no purpose and require no answer (“Will you be there? - Who? I? I’ll be there!”) and repeat questions they’ve been asked even though they heard and fully understood them (“Will you be there? - Will I be there? Well…”). Often they use questions as means to keep the conversation going (For instance they may ask questions just to buy time to think of the answers)
Askers, to a large degree, conduct communication in a form of a question and an answer. Always conducting dialogues with who ever they are talking to (“I would like to hear your response”, “Ask me, I’ll answer”) or in imaginary conversations (internal “dialogue”). Even if the story of the asker was planned as a monologue, as a rule it decomposes into fragments (question - answer) inevitably turning into a dialogue.
The asker quickly and at once reacts to a question set in the path of it’s monologue (Independent of importance and rationality/irrationality of the question asked) ? answers the question then continues where they left off. As they are naturally prone to a dialogue style of communication over a “meek”(Unrequited) monologue mode, they prefer when they are asked questions when in monologue mode. Also because of that it takes great effort to stay on course and resist the temptation to stray of course by interrupting the interlocutor with questions that could possibly take them of course.
Declaring¶
When Declaring types speak they’re inclined to use affirmative intonations and because of that they are often perceived as confident or as categorical. Even their questions are often relayed in an affirmative tone.
Declaring types are inclined to ask questions to receive/get answers to them. Unlike askers, they rarely answer a question with a question or ask questions that are conversational surplus or ask questions as a way to keep the conversation going.
Declarers are inclined to communicate in forms of monologues, where each party has “it’s turn”. Because of that they subconsciously attempt to transform a dialogue into a monologue (Either their own or that of their interlocutor by just listening without interrupting) and as a result of that the conversation ends up sounding like a sequence of two alternating monologues.
Declarers can lose their train of thought when they are interrupted with questions during their monologues and because of that they usually wait and respond to such questions later. When asked a question “on topic” they will usually asks the person who asked the question to be patient as they are getting to that or to wait till they are finished and will try to incorporate their answer into their monologue. They relate with greater understanding to the desire to not to be interrupted while they are speaking and because of that they avoid asking questions while their interlocutor is speaking even if they are “on topic” and prefer to ask questions and voice reciprocal arguments after their interlocutor has finished speaking.
Analogy¶
The asker and declarer difference can be explained by a parallel of conducting narration in two different literary genres. For the declarer it’s a finished narration, the full story, you can see the beginning, the culmination and the outcome, while the askers have more of a play like mentality with constant exchanges between characters.
Hypotheses¶
The orientation of the primary function strengthens the manifestation of each of the attribute: extraversion pronounces the declaring attribute while introversion pronounces the asking attribute.
Nonverbal communication is more clearly expressed in the asker then in the declarer (Eye contact, gestures)
In written speech declarers are more inclined to replace questions with a narrative on the questions essence while askers are more inclined to replace narration with questions or exclamations (As if demanding an answer, provoking the reader to a response)
Examples¶
Askers: “Is there more then one way? Yes” (The person has fully repeated the question they were asked) “Where to begin? Well, what would you like to know? Yesterday I went…” (The response to a question “what did you do yesterday” is with a series of questions practically removing the significance of giving an answer)
Declarers: “When people list their interests I don’t understand whether it is with the intention to pursue the interests or what?” (The question sounds like a statement) Declarer: Will you be there? Asker: Who? I? Very well.
Tactics | Strategy¶
Tactics¶
Tactical types focus their attention on their current situation, on the nearest action, on the actual choices—in other words, they are more oriented at their course, the chain of events, instead of the goal towards which this chain may lead.
As a rule, they do not “fix” for themselves a single “point” which they want to hit or reach—in other words, a goal. Thus, the direction in which they are moving is liable to change.
In contrast to Strategic types, they are not inclined to constantly compare their current actions with the desired end state (“goal”). The emerging goals are evaluated in accordance to how well they fit their current route (how well the goal coincides with the direction they are adhering to).
All possibilities of events occurring now or those that have occurred in the past (that which has occurred or could have occurred) i.e. different scenarios, outcomes, they perceive as equivalent (equally likely to happen and equally likely to have happened).
They consciously do not set goals or do it very rarely (when pressured by the circumstances). They avoid setting distant (very long-term or global) goals: “Why plan—you still need to live to that moment”.
Tactical types consciously operate with routes/pathways—they examine and contrast many different possible variations of present events and actions they can undertake (i.e. pathways), arrange them according to some kind of criteria (for example, for optimal efficiency).
If Tactical types assess their actions to be directed towards a concrete goal, when the goal is reached they feel a sensation of emptiness, disappointment.
Lexicon: in speech of tacticians words “way” “means” “methods” can often be heard. They are not inclined to speak of the purpose of their actions but rather substitute it with other concepts (“necessity” “dream” “interest” “task” and so on)
Strategy¶
Strategic types focus their attention on a “point” they wish to reach, i.e. on the goal of their actions instead of the actions and events themselves.
Strategists, as a rule, do not fix their direction i.e. concrete actions the sequence of which leads to the goal. Thus, their “trajectory” by which they move towards fulfilling their goals can change.
They assess their actions and choices from the point of view of how closer they bring them to their desired objectives (goals). Being put before a choice, they reject those options that do not bring them closer.
In analyzing past, Strategists accentuate “key moments” (most significant stages) that led them to present point. They do not consider all versions of events as equivalent (they perceive the version that has actualized separately, by itself)
They consciously set goals and have difficulty scrapping them. May experience confusion if they are forced to change a goal. They experience satisfaction in achieving their set objectives (goals) and disappointment if they had to deviate away from it or could not achieve it.
Strategists consciously operate with goals. In situations where Strategists have several goals, they sort and arrange their goals into a hierarchy.
Without having a conscious goal, Strategists feel as if something is missing and their life is incomplete. They experience discomfort and feel disoriented.
Lexicon: in their speech Strategists often use words “goal” “aim” and other versions of this. Strategists clearly express their goals and purposes, precisely formulate and describe them, do not substitute them with other concepts unlike Tacticians.
Notes¶
The key element in understanding this group is the dichotomy of “goal/purpose—method/pathway”. The consciousness of the Strategist is to a larger degree orientated towards the goal/purpose itself and not towards the actions undertaken in process of achieving it, while the consciousness of the Tactician is largely focused on the path i.e. the actual actions (“steps”) but not their end goal. This encompasses not only the conscious activities of individuals, which decisions they undertake, and so on, but also external circumstances, background events, and other concurrent factors. On a general level it is possible to speak about a difference in “reference points”: either the course is corrected in accordance to some fixed goal (Strategist) or the course becomes fixed and goals become variable (Tactician).
Hypotheses¶
Tactical types feel disappointment upon reaching a goal in cases when they had to deviate from their course. This is because the course or pathway is more important for Tactical types than their goal. Thus, in situations when their purpose came to the foreground before their course, they experienced discomfort. This is further aggravated for Rational Tacticals, who, by their nature, are inclined to plan their actions, and feel great discomfort if their plans come apart. On the other hand, a feeling of emptiness arises because when a goal has been reached the course is interrupted. Tactical types feel as if the ground temporarily leaves from under their feet. The sensation of confidence, resoluteness that accompanies their normal mode of life disappears. When they were “moving along their own path”, everything was clear and easy. Upon reaching a goal, even if it was a much desired one, Tactical types lose their “string” and often do not know how to proceed further and what to do next.
Examples¶
Tactics: “To speak of global goals is difficult, a goal is several localized tasks” “I do not see one big goal, but rather a chain of small ones” “I pick up everything as I go along” “Long term goals… well I reach them, but somehow it all occurs crookedly” “If I ever set an end goal, I would have died! Such a thing does not exit for me” “There are multiple goals at the end of each path that you take. I try to “catch” them along the way” “My way, for a long time, was clear to me” “There are many things that I could have done, but haven’t” “There are many ways in which my life could have unfolded. I could have lived in different places, could have had other professions” “If I was another person, everything could have been different” “When I look back and think about the things that could have been, I see many crossroads. I see myself, as I am living after taking a different turn—in another universe”
Strategists: “The point is not whether the goal is big or small, but in being aware of it. The goal is clear, the course is undefined… I don’t always remember how I accomplish what I have in mind” “I was a slave to my goal” “A goal constitutes the central point of self-organization. I feel ashamed that some goals are left unfulfilled, even if they are insignificant… if a goal was drawn you can’t really erase it” “A global goal is a comforting thought. If the criteria of a course satisfies the criteria set by the goal, I will take it” “There aren’t any “distractions” along the way” “A person must have a goal in life, otherwise—what’s the point?” “A huge list—35 items of what I want to accomplish in my life” “A person cannot always clearly state that what he wishes to accomplish, but nevertheless they accomplish it… minor questions I do not consider, I aim somewhere further than that” “There are such moment in ones life—cardinal moments,—where if I failed to do something I wanted, it would not have been me… I always look where it would have led me” “Every act leads somewhere” “There were many “key moments”. The important thing was how they shortened or prolonged my movement towards the end point” “I keep track of “key moments” and can list them one by one. I regret that because of lack of experience I could not solve some problems effectively, and because of this it took longer time for me to reach my goal… One way or another, I would have reached the result that I wanted to reach.”
Constructivism | Emotivism¶
Constructivists¶
In contact with other people, constructivist types try to reduce or completely avoid any stages of emotional contact (to “skip” it). They do not consider overall emotional attitude as a necessary element of interaction (in interaction, they discuss or do something together, not always emotionally “re-adjusting”)
For the constructivist emotional “anchors” are important (connected to a certain place, book, movie, etc.) which resonate with their internal emotional condition. With the help of such anchors, they hold onto or strengthen their inner emotional state. They are inclined to re-reed a book or to visit the same place again just to go through the emotions connected with that place.
They can get “emotionally hooked”, experience strong emotions regardless of whether they like the overall quality of material presented (for example, they may dislike a movie as a whole but laugh or cry during a single scene from it).
They disassociate themselves from other’s emotions and worries with greater difficulty than from requests to do or think over something.
Emotivists¶
In interaction with other people, they try to get them into the “correct” emotional state (or readjust themselves). In interaction they are drawn into the overall emotional orientation (they distinguish communication and relating as a separate type of activity—as “immersion into the atmosphere”). While discussing some matter, an emotivist may “wander off” away from the subject and “go off” on an emotional exchange.
Emotivists would rather prefer new impressions than returning to something already lived through, an old experience (even if its emotionally pleasant). They will re-read a book or revisit the same place in cases they have forgotten something or in hopes of finding something new.
Information (for example, book, movie, excursion) perceived as presented unprofessionally, of “poor quality”, does not provoke the emotivist emotionally but leaves them indifferent.
They distance themselves form requests of others to do or consider something with greater difficulty than from emotions and worries of others.
Hypotheses¶
Constructivists less critically receive emotions, they get “loaded” by them. After falling into a particular emotional state, constructivists stay in it for a prolonged period of time, therefore they try to avoid information that is unacceptable or unpleasant for them emotionally. For emotivists calls for action/consideration are not critically evaluated, thus they can get “loaded” by them and switch to thinking about a certain topic. After getting into a theme they stay in that mode of operation for a prolonged period of time and have difficulty switching, “disconnecting” (due to this they try to avoid unacceptable requests/topics).
Examples¶
Constructivists: “I try to reduce emotional contact. I always start with a set of automatic responses (give slippers, pour some tea or coffee…)” “If somebody has come for a shoulder to cry on I generally know what to do” “It is so much easier to come into contact over some objective matter (interaction by pertaining to the matter at hand)” “I prefer when people offer me concrete solutions to my problems—it is better than consolations” “If I wish to help, then of course by action. Very rarely I call just to inquire how things are going. I track moods in parallel” “I listen to music depending on my mood” “I will re-read the whole book for specific paragraphs… What does it mean “poorly written”? It stirs me—that’s what’s important” “I drive over to the same place, it’s as if I’m visiting my home” “I try not to see movies that I know are emotionally heavy. I won’t watch them over again most certainly” “I can worry for people for a long time, even those whom I casually met” “The first time you watch a comedy is to laugh—after that it’s to relive these experiences”.
Emotivist: “First of all, I attempt to create a comfortable psychological atmosphere. I try to direct new people into the situation, “build bridges”, help them “accommodate” so that they feel at ease” “I strike up new contacts with words, not actions” “If emotional atmosphere of an interaction is negative I consider the conversation “wasted” (unsuccessful)” “Before a dialogue I as if check the emotional states of people involved and try to positively orient them” “It’s easier to change the emotional background” “I can talk about various things that I don’t believe in or have no interest in simply “for the spirit” of the conversation” “I need new experiences so I am likely to visit a new place. If I return, then I return to a place where “the road has changed” since I last visited” “I won’t watch a movie that was poorly directed. Poorly written book doesn’t stir and involve me” “I’ll re-read a book if I have forgotten the storyline” “If I’m asked to consider/do something what I’ll most remember is the act of request itself”.
Yielding | Obstinate¶
Yielding¶
For the Yielding type, personal resources falls into their “inner personal space” (i.e. something that cannot be compromised), which is outlined with a “personal boundary”, while interests constitute an object to be manipulated. Interest is evoked only if it can be supported by an adequate, corresponding resource or opportunity.
Yielding type, while interacting with other people, freely express their interests (they readily share photographs, voice their disagreements, consider counterarguments, are ready to share their interests with other people and collaborate on them). These types clearly delineate interests as “my own” and “those of others”.
Yielding types protect themselves during conflicts over resources, but they do not monitor encroachments on their interests. If anyone attempts to claim their resources, thus intruding into their “personal space”, they react sharply, which can even seem a bit over the edge and aggressive. (This reaction is associated with “inviolability” of their resources.)
Obstinate¶
For Obstinate types, their interest fall into their “personal (“inviolable”) space”, which is outlined with a “personal boundary”, while resources are an object to be manipulated. In the presence of an interest, their will seek suitable resources and opportunities.
The Obstinate interacting with other people freely operates with their resources (they can “share” and “trade” them, purposefully replenish them and use them up). They are acutely aware of the dividing line between their own resources and those of others.
Obstinate types guard themselves from intrusions into their personal sphere of interests, while at the same time they pay no heed to intrusions on their resources. If someone tries to impose their interests on Obstinate types, thus intruding into their personal space, their reaction will be sufficiently deterring and sharp (such a reaction occurs in cases when other’s interests do not become their interests).
Notes¶
Key concepts of this dichotomy are “personal space”, “resources” (what we have available at our disposal) and “personal interests” (what is meant here are not personal interests, but pursuits we find interesting and feel personal responsibility and attachment to). “Personal space” is something that an individual feels is an integral part of himself or herself, cannot renounce it, and will defend it from impositions and intrusions from outside. For the Yielding types, this space is occupied by their resources, while for the Obstinate types—by their interests. Correspondingly, Yielding types manipulate interests (freely change them, adjust them in accordance with their resources) and Obstinate—their resources (they adjust them to their interests).
Examples¶
Compliant: “Affairs can be yours and those of other people who can compel you with their requests” “Interests that cannot be realized eventually become uninteresting. I let go of old interests easily” “I try to limit my affairs, how many things I’m involved with, how many things I am suppose to do. Potentially this is interesting to me but I will not undertake it” “If I know that I can’t do something, I will reject it and will forget about it” “If I have an interest, it is, naturally, reflected by capabilities. If something is impossible I won’t go wasting my time and effort on it.” “I don’t understand people who list all kinds of interests… personally I clearly know what my capabilities are”
Obstinate: “I never let go of my favorite occupations. I will do them at expense of sleep, food…” “I certainly won’t abandon it…. I’m inclined to squeeze the situation to the very end” “I can’t let go of my interests out of fear of destruction and loss of my personality” “My interests are at the limits of my physical capabilities. When my physical capabilities show me their limits—I back away, but I will do this only as a very last resort… but even then I will not abandon them but “postpone” them and await the moment when I have sufficient resources. I won’t let go of my interests, even though the resources are already insufficient…”
Carefree | Farsighted¶
Carefree¶
Careless types are inclined to solve a problem and search for a solution using only that information which is accessible to them in that given situation (for example, under the conditions of a given task). Therefore, careless types for each new task make a new “algorithm” to fit the given task.
In giving their answer to the problem posed, the context of searching for the answer and solving the problem (the preparation stage, collection of information, past experience, and so on) is not mentioned, but rather it is silently “implied”.
When speaking, careless types often use the word “anticipate” as a general concept; usually they mean that it is “needed”, “it would be good” or that “it is “impossible” to “anticipate everything”.
Farsighted¶
When solving problems farsighted types “scoop” the information from a wide “pool” of their experiences (when considering a question, they are inclined to refer to the entirely of their experience and knowledge in an attempt to find an answer). Farsighted types are inclined to use already prepared, accumulated methods (algorithms) for solving problems.
When answering a question posed, they cover a wide context: they mention the preliminary stage of their search for the answer, the circumstance surrounding this search, the information that was available.
When speaking, farsighted type rarely use the word “anticipate” as a general concept, but when they describe some actions or plans they demonstrate this concept through concrete examples (they give examples of how something could be anticipated).
Examples:¶
On a topic: how will you prepare for a vacation and how will you spend it.
Carefree: “I try to make do with the minimum amount of “stuff” so I won’t have a lot of baggage. You cannot prepare for everything” “I will for sure forget something. I’ll pack some clothing, an umbrella, books, maps, a camera, medicine. I will for sure bring books; entertainment will be found as I go along, a lot of things I’ll find out there” “I bring along a minimum of what I need in order to have a good time. Personal hygiene items, medicines, some clothing which is necessary. Common entertainment can’t be foreseen” “Things in bare minimum. I’ll buy adequate footwear, a new bathing suit, plan some trips and excursions” “One tries to anticipate every situation that could happen. But I cannot prepare for everything that might be needed there” “Clothing and medicine and other stuff that is necessary to cover “weak spots”. With leisure and entertainment I’ll see on the spot… Certain things are assumed by default”.
Farsighted: “Two things I’ll bring for sure: a bathing suit and a camera. You can’t always be certain what things will be there, so it’s better to prepare in advance—or it will be like my first trip to Italy when I brought along a hair dryer and an iron when the hotel there could’ve provide me with each… Nonetheless I’ll need batteries and film for the camera, which can be prepared beforehand” “A trip is a trip, not the first time for me. The familiar activity, I know what I need to bring. It is needed to learn at least a little bit of the local language. A lot of time will go into trying to obtain information” “Before departure I always pay my bills so that when I come back there will be no “nasty” surprises awaiting me… I first find out what the weather there will be like. It is better to buy all the necessities beforehand, because going shopping on a trip is an unproductive expenditure of time that should go into leisure activities” “It is necessary to get a passport with a visa and insurance. To decide what to do with the cat” “The tour agency is responsible for many things, should provide me with information. If not, I will look for additional cultural information… I’ve worked out a habit, a set of items that I should bring along” “If it’s a coat, then it must be sown by a tailor” “Why?” “Well I presume…” (pause).” <Farsighted>: “These buttons are same as on the remote control that I have at home, it won’t change the channel” <Carefree>: “Let me take a look at it” <Farsighted>: “Why attempt it in vain?”
Democrats | Aristocrats¶
Democrats¶
Democrat perceives and distinguishes himself primarily through personal qualities. Perceiving other people, their personal qualities are likewise primary for him (how close, interesting, pleasant or unpleasant this individual is to him personally; their intelligence, ideas, appearance, tastes, etc.). Because of this, individualism is inherent to the democrat: “I am I”.
Democrat forms his attitude toward a specific person based on their personal characteristics (authority, intellect, personal achievements, etc.). The democrat recognizes superiority of certain individuals drawing from their personal qualities. The relation of the democrat to another person will not be based on their belonging to one group or another, as well as on their relations to the representatives of these groups.
Democratic types are not inclined to perceive people with whom they associate as representatives of a certain “circle of contacts”, which possesses special characteristics, inherent precisely to the members of this circle.
Democrat is not inclined to use expressions that generalize “group features” of certain individuals (for example, “a typical representative”).
Aristocrats¶
The aristocrat frequently perceives and defines himself an other people through group associations (division into groups can occur based on almost any criteria: professional or theoretical, by age or nationality, by place of residence or which floor the persons live on, etc.), for example: “I’m a representative of…” “This person is from such and such…”. Collectivism is more inherent to the aristocrat.
Their attitude toward another person forms under the influence of their attitude towards the group to which the person belongs. To the aristocrat, it is incomprehensible how it is possible to belong to two opposing groups at the same time: “You are either with us, or with them and against us”.
Aristocrat distinguished his “circle of contacts” by certain traits, realizes its certain “specialty”.
In speech aristocrat frequently use expressions like “group”, “typical representative of”, “our”, “all of them are like that”, etc.
Notes¶
Briefly, the essence of each of these attributes can be expressed as follows: primacy of collective “we” (Aristocrats) or of individual “I” (Democrats) and the corresponding values.
It is possible to say that the aristocrat is to a larger degree a social being, an the democrat—individualistic. Therefore, the dispute of what is more important—society or the individual—cannot be resolved.
From the point of view of social psychology, in perception of a new person the aristocrat strongly involves the mechanism of social recognition: casual attribution (the degree depends on uniqueness and social conditionality of behavior) and “halo/aura” effect (which manifests when the individual has little information about a new person). Both of them are a part of the process of stereotyping (perception/recognition through a stereotype) [1, with. 128].
Hypotheses¶
Aristocrats: Ethical intuitive types create new groups (“inhabitants of suburbs”, “typical representative of a new generation of goalkeepers”)—adding up or summing up certain cumulative features which are inherent in the majority. Logical sensing types use these groupings that have been created by ethical intuitives, switching to their strong logical function and building a system of personal relations on its basis.
Democrats: In perception of a democrat, a group is created from individuals drawn together on basis of a common interest, project, idea (for logical intuitive types) or on basis of mutual sentiments and sympathies (for ethical sensing types). Additionally, a group in perception of democratic types is not the basis for creating a social hierarchy.
Influence of this attribute on determination of the type of personality:¶
Hierarchy and status are frequently described as inherent to structural logic (Ti). According to our observations this is entirely false. White logic (Ti) types of the first quadra will adhere to formal requirements, but will not begin to reconstruct all of their behavior in accordance to a new status. In this manner will act the aristocrats of the second quadra, most obviously the sensing logical types. Some confusion can arise due to this. If we were to observe, we would see that other aristocratic types are no less inclined to such “status games”, for example “I demand that they relate to me as the director” (EIE), “I cannot associate with those of a higher position then me” (IEE).
Division of people into “mine” and “not mine” is frequently attributed to aristocracy. In actuality, this division holds true for any white ethics (Fi) type, including the democrats (SEE, and in particular ESI). If we expand this concept, then “my” is any person with whom close relations have been formed, there is a familiar connection or sincere attachment. For the IEE an EII sincere attachment and belonging to a group are combined: “mine” and “not mine” for them are members of “their group” or “foreign group”.
Switching from “you” to “formal you” [Russian language and a few other languages have formal and informal forms of reference] is not always significant from the point of view of manifestation of this attribute. According to the standards of etiquette and rules of behavior, it is accepted to address older people and those in senior position with formal form of “you” (with respect), and different informal situations, regardless of the rules, require switch to informal “you”. For instance if a child’s mother is the teacher in his class, then the child will refer to her with formal “you” in class. It is possible to give more example of this. The important thing is not how they are addressed, but the reason for doing so.
Examples¶
Democrats: “I’m not interested in social affiliations of a person or other social ‘marks’ they may have” “I don’t even have thoughts of establishing someone’s affiliations to any groups. A person is a unit” “It is important what the individual represents” “When I interact with somebody I don’t really care whether they are a man or a woman” “It is difficult for me to determine what constitutes belonging to a group, I cannot isolate that something that differentiates from others” “I am a representative only of my own ideas” “I notice groups, but it’s just a game (they are not real, the groups are pretended)”.
Aristocrats: “I perceive people based on their group affiliations, place everyone “on a shelf” (“a good mother”, “a charming person”, etc.)” “If it is possible to determine in which grouping the person belongs, then this is reassuring. It is easier to receive information from someone knowing which group they are a part of” “I separate people based on their professional capabilities. First: to what social and economic stratus the person belongs to. Second: is he a professional or not, the way he conducts himself, his individual qualities” “I am referring to you as to a typical representative of translators” “At my workplace they hired a new secretary recently, and she works poorly, and in general is not that kind of a person. May be because she is from the suburbs… please don’t misunderstand me, I’m not an aristocrat! I’m not!” “For me this religion means nothing, but for the ordinary people it is necessary” “You are my friend, but my friends don’t steal toilet paper from McDonalds!”
Investigation of Quadra Attributes: The concept of a “quadra spirit” or “quara values” can be expressed through the filling of three quadra attributes. Thus, for example, a song from 1930: “We shall sing and laugh alike children, in persistent struggle and labor”—was composed by a person belonging to the second quadra, not because of the “quadra spirit”, but because two attributes are embedded within it—subjectivism and decisiveness—the combination of which exists only in the second quadra.
Summary¶
The results of this research have indicated a stable tendency for existence of independent Reinin attributes and exact distribution of types by dichotomous criteria. The understanding of some attributes in socionics has been substantially improved, augmented and expanded. A few hypotheses regarding some of the attributes have not found confirmation in this experiment.
As was shown, similar kind of research can help with creation of objective criteria and reliable methods and tools for determining the socionics type of a personality. Furthermore, only by accounting for Reinin attributes it is possible to move towards the creation a complete, multidimensional model of psyche.
The experiment carried out was a pilot experiment, it’s methods and conclusion should be statistically confirmed on a large scale experimental group. Nevertheless, already it is already possible to speak of stable tendencies—in majority of cases there were practically no exceptions, for some attributes a minimal number of exceptions (approximately one person from ten) were observed. Almost all of those exceptions were connected to conscious behavioral level or acquired through education and upbringing. In manifestation of attributes on a lexic level, in speech and nonverbal communication, there were no exceptions found. For an experienced diagnostician in Socionics, it is possible to trace the manifestation of the majority of these attributes during a Socionics interview.
Literature¶
Andreeva G.M. Social Psychology. - Moscow: Aspekt Press, 1998.
Augustinavichyute A. Theory of Renin Aspects. Essay on Socionics / / Socionics, Mentology and personality psychology. - 1998. - № 1-6.
Gulenko V.V., Tyshchenko V.P. Jung in school. - Novosibirsk, 1997.
Reinin G.R. group of bipolar symptoms in the typology of C. Jung / / Socionics, Mentology and personality psychology. - 1996. - № 6.
Reinin G.R. Morphology of small groups / / Socionics, Mentology and personality psychology. - 2001. - № 2.
Reinin G.R. Theoretical analysis of typological descriptions of personality in psychology / / Socionics, Mentology and personality psychology. 1999. - № 4-6.
Reinin G.R. Typology of C. Jung as a mathematical object. Main results / / Socionics, Mentology and personality psychology. - 1996. - № 6.
Filatova E.S. Socionics for all. Science of communication, understanding and agreement. - St.: B & K, 1999.
The Working Group on Socionics in the laboratory of interdisciplinary research IBPCH (St. Petersburg) comprising: Ivanov P.A., Kochubeeva L.A., Malkova I.I., Malskaya E.N., Mironov V.V., Ovchinnikov E.I., Stoyalova M.L.; Dospehov S.V., Egorov V.V., Egorova O.A., Kazakov M.M., Kovaleva A.U. The authors are also grateful to E.M. Sharova, Z.A. Barzakh, I.F. Leschinsky, L.V. Kiseleva, E.G. Erykalina, as well as to all of the participants of research meetings.