# "Concrete Socionics" and "Phenomenological cognition Socionics"



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

There two main Socionics theories which are incompatible where it likely that a person's type would not correlate between the two. 

*"Concrete Socionics"*
The concrete version is fundamentally based on analyzing behaviour as a basis for typing. The metrics used for analysis are the explicit elements that forecast behaviour output like the quadra values, reininn dichotomies, Information Metabolism... descriptions as the direct basis for determining type. The Socionics questionnaire is very hand for this method http://personalitycafe.com/whats-my-socionics-type/121648-socionics-type-questionnaire.html . Those metrics determine type.


*"Phenomenological cognition Socionics"*
In a nutshell, Socionics as a theory about phenomenological cognition: understanding thought processes, how people process information (intuition sensing logic and ethics). Not a theory about efficacy or behavior. The emphasis is not in how well people think but instead ways people tend to perceive and experience reality. With this method the Jungian Cognitive function type has a direct relationship with the Socionics type as both focus on innate abstract thought patterns. This method is a lot more difficult as it requires introspection a clear mind to analyse.


----------



## aestrivex (Mar 7, 2011)

it seems like you have experienced being in bed with the ashtonian philosophy. here is my take, primarily for the benefit of people that might read this thread who are not you:

socionics purports to describe information metabolism. this affects people on how they perceive the world around them, effectively what i call the motivational level that you/ashton are calling the phenomenological level. while its true that this is the fundamental metric of socionics and how it works, and as such its important to understand that not all behavior is meaningful behavior -- the dichotomy that you are drawing is utterly false and anyone who believes that motivation is entirely independent from behavior is smoking a crock of shit. and no, i don't feel a need to justify this observation; if its not obvious then feel free to go on smoking.

boolean, i'm not responding to anything else you have to say in this thread.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

aestrivex said:


> it seems like you have experienced being in bed with the ashtonian philosophy. here is my take, primarily for the benefit of people that might read this thread who are not you:
> 
> socionics purports to describe information metabolism. this affects people on how they perceive the world around them, effectively what i call the motivational level that you/ashton are calling the phenomenological level. while its true that this is the fundamental metric of socionics and how it works, and as such its important to understand that not all behavior is meaningful behavior -- the dichotomy that you are drawing is utterly false and anyone who believes that motivation is entirely independent from behavior is smoking a crock of shit. and no, i don't feel a need to justify this observation; if its not obvious then feel free to go on smoking.
> 
> boolean, i'm not responding to anything else you have to say in this thread.


I'm wondering why your views are very unpopular on 16types


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

I agree with @aestrivex about how information metabolism isn't just that direct behavioural approach of "concrete socionics". Also reinin traits etc.

Otoh... motivation and behaviour are connected but not in a simple direct one-to-one way. Especially not when trying to work backwards from behaviour to motivation. So while this doesn't mean they are completely disconnected, it doesn't mean there's a good strong connection either.

Oh and about me saying how reinin stuff depending on interpretation of it could also easily go with the second approach mentioned in OP... that of course does not guarantee any kind of direct causal relationship between IE's and reinin traits, either. The same for gulenko cognitive styles etc...


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

itsme45 said:


> Oh and about me saying how reinin stuff depending on interpretation of it could also easily go with the second approach mentioned in OP... that of course does not guarantee any kind of direct causal relationship between IE's and reinin traits, either. The same for gulenko cognitive styles etc...


My understanding is that the Reinin dichotomies highlight common tendencies of certain IEs or IE groupings. Definitely not something I would type from either, though some of them might be interesting to look at after settling on a given type. I'm of the opinion that the RDs range from interesting to useless, depending on the dichotomy in question.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Kanerou said:


> My understanding is that the Reinin dichotomies highlight common tendencies of certain IEs or IE groupings. Definitely not something I would type from either, though some of them might be interesting to look at after settling on a given type. I'm of the opinion that the RDs range from interesting to useless, depending on the dichotomy in question.


There's supposed to be some math foundation to them as well but I see that being linked to specific traits as pretty arbitrary.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

I'd say that they aren't incompatible, but rather different levels of understanding, with behavioral methods not delving deep but offering a greater degree of objectivity; behavior is something that can be measured, studied, observed directly. Many of the actions that people undertake in the course of their daily lives are reflexive and don't possess complex underlying motivations. Typing methodologies in socionics that rely on cognitive approaches address the abstract mental processes, but they depend too much on subjective interpretations. I think they are complementary modes rather than incompatible.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

Kanerou said:


> My understanding is that the Reinin dichotomies highlight common tendencies of certain IEs or IE groupings. Definitely not something I would type from either, though some of them might be interesting to look at after settling on a given type. I'm of the opinion that the RDs range from interesting to useless, depending on the dichotomy in question.


I've been practicing using them and I would say that there is definitely something to it.

But it's not easy material to understand (not for Socionics beginners) and requires many months of reading and practice in applying them. It's kind of like solving complex integrals in a calculus class. At first you stare at it at the equations and none of it makes sense. You panic, feel frustrated, just want to brush it all aside. But after reading the textbook carefully and working through some examples you slowly start to understand them. People who say that it all depends on interpretation and it's all arbitrary and so on and so forth are usually those who haven't put in this effort yet into trying to work with Reinins.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Well, I think that Reinin are useful as a starter if you are absolutely unsure where you fall type wise, as Reinin and quadras can at least help narrow the type down from 16 to 8 at worst, 2 at best. 

It doesn't mean that I advocate here that people should only type based off Reinin as it is possible for any sole individual to exhibit behavior contrary to their quadra or share values not inherently valued by their quadra at any given moment, but when one understands that Reinin and intertype both relate to function values, I don't see a reason to shrug them off either. They are very tangible once you know what to look for.


----------



## aestrivex (Mar 7, 2011)

itsme45 said:


> There's supposed to be some math foundation to them as well but I see that being linked to specific traits as pretty arbitrary.


there's no real math foundation.

What the math foundation is, is suggesting that combinations of dichotomies have shared traits. That is to say, reinin dichotomies are based on combinations of jungian dichotomies. using MBTI-like notation for clarity (ESTj=LSE etc) INXx and ESXx are both farsighted and ISXx and ENXx are both carefree. Or, XXTj and XXFp are both emotivist, and XXFj and XXTp are constructivist.

Basically, the dichotomies have a mathematically defined structure, but if you understand something about how quadra values operate (a powerful difference between types), it is easy to understand why this structure is trivial when it comes to how types actually behave.

With two exceptions: merry/serious and judicious/decisive which are just quadra values distinctions, and one half-exception, democracy/aristocracy which is a very confused quadra values distinction. These are not true reinin dichotomies.


----------



## sinigang (May 5, 2012)

I think Reinin's is broken but I still think it's actually possible to derive a math/algorithmic foundation for each of those but that will take a lot of effort.

The primary flaw is in dividing through dichotomies itself. In such, it is assumed that the given two qualities for each are exact opposites, which is not always the case. Some traits could actually apply to only a few and yet the system still tries to split all the types in two groups.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

Reinin has derived his dichotomies basing on the premises that Socionics is base2 (the mind being kind of like a computer I suppose): Socionics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> Taking this, Socionics also differs from other typologies in that it also includes a complementary Base-16 relationship set, with the intent of penning to paper the key social dynamic traits between grouped combinations of socionic types. Therefore, socionics could be considered to be within the realm of the science of social dynamics, intended to describesocial behavior according to mathematical applications of Base-16, group theory, set logic and reduction of theGulenko-Jungian notation for socionics types to hexadecimal and Base-2bitwise operation. While this mathematical approach is strictly theoretical and has been criticized for lack of empirical testing,[SUP][59][/SUP]systems theory has been the tool of socionics theorist, such as Gregory Reinin to derive theorical dichotomies within socionics theory. In 1985 Aušra Augustinavičiūtė acknowledged the mathematical theories of Reinin and wrote a book titled "The Theory of Reinin's Traits" to describe the mathematical processes of socionics theory. Mathematical methods have been a standard part of socionics theory since this time.


----------

