# How accurate are Reinin dichotomies?



## Recede (Nov 23, 2011)

This is something I've been wondering about for a while. Do the Reinin traits generally match up with one's type or do they often not match up as they're supposed to? Are there some that are more accurate than others?


----------



## The Exception (Oct 26, 2010)

I'm not sure how reliable they are as an indication of type. I think the ones that help to define quadra: merry/serious, judicious/decisive, aristocratic/democratic might be more useful. I think static/dynamic can be helpful too- it helps define temperament differences. It also helps determine Gulenko Cognitive style along with positivist/negativist and result/process. (I'm not sure how valid the cognitive style theory but it's interesting to think about. That's a tangent for another thread.)

My self-typing is LII. Overall, my Reinin dichotomy preferences point closest to LII but I think I might have a few preferences that are counter to my type or that I'm not sure of. I mention about that in my typing thread I made a while back.


----------



## Telepathis Goosus (Mar 28, 2015)

I think for the most part, the Reinin dichotomies have been accurate. It's a little hard to judge myself, of course, because of self biases. I think the only one that still confuses me is Aristocratic/Democratic, although I can see why NF's are typically aristocratic types. I would say for the most part, it fits.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

They seem accurate to me, when described an appropriate amount. The asking/declaring one is very useful in common dialog. The "yeah, uh huh, uh huh, yeah"s of asking and the "long strings of speech" and "waiting turns to speak" of declaring are very easy to notice.


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

In theory, they should. If they do not reflect an accurate portrait of type, then they must be changed to accommodate.


----------



## Recede (Nov 23, 2011)

I'm skeptical about Reinin traits. Seems like they are hard to identify correctly (increased chance of confirmation bias), and the ones I'm certain of are constructivist, judicious, and democratic, which don't match up with any of the types that are possible for me, as an introvert.

Then again, I haven't found any of the types or functions to be very accurate in explaining my cognition and preferences, so maybe it's not inconsistent that my Reinins wouldn't match up with anything. Hmm.


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

Silveresque said:


> I'm skeptical about Reinin traits. Seems like they are hard to identify correctly (increased chance of confirmation bias), and the ones I'm certain of are constructivist, judicious, and democratic, which don't match up with any of the types that are possible for me, as an introvert.
> 
> Then again, I haven't found any of the types or functions to be very accurate in explaining my cognition and preferences, so maybe it's not inconsistent that my Reinins wouldn't match up with anything. Hmm.


I equate with everything on the ILI page except the demonstrative Ti. I clearly prefer Ti over Te. I don't equate with much on the LII or LSI pages. I dislike Ne and I have no fashion sense or sensorial interests/talents whatsoever. There is no personality type left for me to fit into.

The descriptions are so bad that I equate equally with Vulnerable Fe and Suggestive Fe.


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

I wonder about this too. Especially bearing in mind that they originated from the purely mathematical calculus and since then socionists try to pinpoint what the hell each of them mean.

So far I'm sure of constructivist, process and being a logical ego, but the only types that fit these criteria are ILE and ILI. And while there's a possibility of the latter, Ni base still don't quite fit.


----------



## westlose (Oct 9, 2014)

In fact, Reinin dichotomies are quite accurate. But they are really hard to understand. It's not recommended to use them if you didn't fully understand them.
They are just a manifestation of functions, according to their combination and place in Model A.


----------



## Recede (Nov 23, 2011)

Fried Eggz said:


> I equate with everything on the ILI page except the demonstrative Ti. I clearly prefer Ti over Te. I don't equate with much on the LII or LSI pages. I dislike Ne and I have no fashion sense or sensorial interests/talents whatsoever. There is no personality type left for me to fit into.
> 
> The descriptions are so bad that I equate equally with Vulnerable Fe and Suggestive Fe.


I equate with everything on the ILI page as well. It fits extremely well, down to almost every detail. And I'm not even an ILI, pretty sure I'm not Ni. Unless the typers who unanimously insist that I'm Ne and that there's no way I'm Ni have been misleading me all this time...


----------



## JuliaL. (Mar 7, 2015)

I think most of them are accurate, but one may be a bit confused at first because of poor self-awareness, as in my case.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Your mannerisms in your first post and your avatar said "INTP/ILI" to me when I first read it. Parentingbytemperment.com has a pictogram test for typing kids at the bottom. I find it captures the essence of each dichotomy fairly well, and is usually right on typing others.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

Silveresque said:


> This is something I've been wondering about for a while. Do the Reinin traits generally match up with one's type or do they often not match up as they're supposed to? Are there some that are more accurate than others?


In my experience of using Reinins for typing I've found them to be mostly accurate.
However there are some that are more useful and easy to spot than others (e.g. Dynamic&Static)
And a few Reinins I've found to not work well in typing and in need of revisions (e.g. Aristocratic&Democratic)
Like VI this needs a lot of practice and observation to use it well.
A common mistake people make with Reinins is using a single sentence to type instead of looking at recurring patterns (e.g. if you are asking questions on a forum, you must be an "Asking" type -- needless to say such conclusions are very inaccurate).


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

From my own experience they seem very accurate.


----------



## Recede (Nov 23, 2011)

Jeremy8419 said:


> Your mannerisms in your first post and your avatar said "INTP/ILI" to me when I first read it. Parentingbytemperment.com has a pictogram test for typing kids at the bottom. I find it captures the essence of each dichotomy fairly well, and is usually right on typing others.


I can't find the pictogram test, unless you mean the one that costs $10. 

But I'm already fairly certain my dichotomies are INTx. Leaning slightly irrational, but I don't see any Ni.


----------



## Wolfskralle (Nov 29, 2013)

Reinins are very poor method of discovering your type, imo. While they are generally correct on theoretical level, self-assuring your Reining traits is a very hard task. I would rather have someone more knowledgeable and objective than me, to pick dichotomies for me. Or at least have someone close, who has no knowledge about Socionics at all, hence is objective, yet who know me well.

Besides, Reinis seem just like theoretical deductions based upon functions properties and quadra values; imo these dichotomies are often just exaggerations of certain traits. 
@Silveresque strike me as an ESI - Fi, though I don't really know when and how I get that impression.:th_blush:


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

Lol, WTF wolf? He reminds you of FiSe? Of ME? Are you so certain of that...?

As for Reinins, they are mostly accurate. These are the ones I agree with: Carefree(horrible name btw), yielding, static(oh so much this!), demo, tactical, construct, negotive, and asking. The three I left out are the ones I am unsure of. Not because I don't know which one am I, but because my understanding of them is kinda elementary. And to everyone that is unsure of their type:

How about you take a live MBTI/typology reading(for the lack of better word meh) and try to synthesize how you see yourself with what other, more wise people see? Because of self-bias yeah? This particular action helped me greatly and showed me just how much I was biased(from IEE to ESI lol!). Heh.


----------



## The_Wanderer (Jun 13, 2013)

My perspective of Reinin's dichotomies is that they're one of those rare plans that actually survives first contact with the enemy; even if it's survival is in a bruised black-and-blue state... with a few missing teeth. In other words, it works in a supplementary role more than as a primary tool for determining type.


----------



## Wolfskralle (Nov 29, 2013)

Ixim said:


> Lol, WTF wolf? He reminds you of FiSe? Of ME? Are you so certain of that...?


She reminds me of ESI - Fi, female, you remind me of ESI - Se male, heh. I'm not certain at all, it is just a wild guess, tbh. I don't even remember when I get that impression. 
There is someone on the mbti "type me" subforum who remind me of you, but I don't wanna calling names :th_o:


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

wolf12345 said:


> She reminds me of ESI - Fi, female, you remind me of ESI - Se male, heh. I'm not certain at all, it is just a wild guess, tbh. I don't even remember when I get that impression.
> There is someone on the mbti "type me" subforum who remind me of you, but I don't wanna calling names :th_o:


Yeah, the Se impression could very well be due to ennea combo of 468. In other words: FULL REACTIVE lol. But I could be Se subtype tbh. I have NO trouble imposing my will, stoping people to say hi etc. Want an example?

Today I saw the former president of my country. I had absolutely no trouble saying hello and talking to him. How many people would even dare approach an unknown, famous man, let alone the president? Answer: Se people.

QED


----------



## Wolfskralle (Nov 29, 2013)

Ixim said:


> stoping people to say hi etc. Want an example?
> 
> Today I saw the former president of my country. I had absolutely no trouble saying hello and talking to him. How many people would even dare approach an unknown, famous man, let alone the president? Answer: Se people.
> 
> QED


Well, honestly I think it could be more related with democratic dichotomy, if anything. I am possibly a triple withdrawn enneagram type, sp first and 1-D Se, and don't have problems approaching "powerful" people as well. Chairman of the board who run multi-million dollar business is worth as much as everyman, until I can see his personal merit. I don't feel intimidated by power at all.


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

wolf12345 said:


> Well, honestly I think it could be more related with democratic dichotomy, if anything. I am possibly a triple withdrawn enneagram type, sp first and 1-D Se, and don't have problems approaching "powerful" people as well. Chairman of the board who run multi-million dollar business is worth as much as everyman, until I can see his personal merit. I don't feel intimidated by power at all.


Me neither. A man is a man is a man. Fk the hierarchy!


----------



## KillingTroubleShooter (Mar 25, 2015)

I know tactics/strategy makes perfect sense to me in my life. I'm tactics, and i don't care at all about goals and accomplishments, if i have them that's ok, but if i didn't have to face some challenge to get there i'll be utterly bored of my life. I love challenges and having to go full power to overcome them, as long as i had to use all of my potential i feel good. But it's in the moment, not long-term (ISTP/ISTj/LSI here).


----------



## The_Wanderer (Jun 13, 2013)

Ixim said:


> Today I saw the former president of my country. I had absolutely no trouble saying hello and talking to him. How many people would even dare approach an unknown, famous man, let alone the president? Answer: Se people.


I don't think it's Se, but at the same time, I wouldn't have approached him unless I had something to actually say (i.e. I voted for him, or especially if I hated his policies), or unless I knew him personally. I don't put much worth in fame myself; my reaction would be "oh look, the former president" followed by a shrug, instead of a need to go talk to him for no true reason.



wolf12345 said:


> Well, honestly I think it could be more related with democratic dichotomy, if anything. I am possibly a triple withdrawn enneagram type, sp first and 1-D Se, and don't have problems approaching "powerful" people as well. Chairman of the board who run multi-million dollar business is worth as much as everyman, until I can see his personal merit. I don't feel intimidated by power at all.


I do agree about your correlation with the democratic dichotomy. Although I also have little issue approaching "powerful" people if I see some reason to do so, otherwise they're just people who I have nothing to do with or no interest in. I'm not so sure feelings of intimidation are how I'd describe it, more so genuine indifference.

Your final point is excellent, though; I measure people's "worth" though personal merit and what I think they could achieve.


----------



## Wolfskralle (Nov 29, 2013)

The_Wanderer said:


> I do agree about your correlation with the democratic dichotomy. Although I also have little issue approaching "powerful" people if I see some reason to do so, otherwise they're just people who I have nothing to do with or no interest in. I'm not so sure feelings of intimidation are how I'd describe it, more so genuine indifference.


Well yeah, in my case I meant people with whom I deal on a professional level, I don't see the point for approaching anybody for no reason ;-)



> Your final point is excellent, though; *I measure people's "worth" though* personal merit and *what I think they could achieve.*


Delta aristocracy at it's finest ? Measuring worth in terms of where someone could _potentially_ reach, when it comes to social status? if I'm understanding it correctly.
In my case I'd rather ignore social status, both substantial and potential, and only measure them throught my personal values and throught lens of my personal goals.


----------



## The_Wanderer (Jun 13, 2013)

wolf12345 said:


> Delta aristocracy at it's finest ? Measuring worth in terms of where someone could _potentially_ reach, when it comes to social status? if I'm understanding it correctly.


In regards to _social status_, if you mean _social stratification _then I find it deplorable. Race, religion, gender, power, money, etc. are disgusting ways to measure and to discriminate against people.

It's hard to explain precisely, largely due to my own inability, but my line of thought starts more along the lines of _what do they want? __what do they value?_ _what are their goals? what are they skilled at?

_The word I'm looking for _may_ be meritocracy, but that is still not precise.


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

wolf12345 said:


> Well yeah, in my case I meant people with whom I deal on a professional level, I don't see the point for approaching anybody for no reason ;-)
> 
> 
> Delta aristocracy at it's finest ? Measuring worth in terms of where someone could _potentially_ reach, when it comes to social status? if I'm understanding it correctly.
> In my case I'd rather ignore social status, both substantial and potential, and only measure them throught my personal values and throught lens of my personal goals.


*In my case I'd rather ignore social status, both substantial and potential, and only measure them throught my personal values*.

Yeah, I do. Guilty as charged  . I don't care about goals, but then again I'm not an Te or Ni for that matter. I trust you don't care about bolded as much as I do either. There is that.


----------



## ElliCat (May 4, 2014)

wolf12345 said:


> Delta aristocracy at it's finest ? Measuring worth in terms of where someone could _potentially_ reach, when it comes to social status? if I'm understanding it correctly.
> In my case I'd rather ignore social status, both substantial and potential, and only measure them throught my personal values and throught lens of my personal goals.


Nooo not social status! Maybe if I believed that social status was an inherently worthy thing. But I don't see much value in it so I tend to disregard it. 

It's more about who they are as a person, who they could grow to become, and how that fits in with my own values. I suppose I use that to create my own categories/hierarchy. 



The_Wanderer said:


> It's hard to explain precisely, largely due to my own inability, but my line of thought starts more along the lines of _what do they want? __what do they value?_ _what are their goals? what are they skilled at?_


_
I think that's a good way to describe it but I'm not the best person to put it neatly or succinctly. :-/_


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

I don't think of people in terms of their worth, except in the working environment. If a person finished their job on time and their job is of necessary quality then they are a worthy worker. If a person is late and unprofessional with their job obligations then they are an unworthy worker. Otherwise, I don't even know how to assign a label of "worthiness" onto somebody.
People can be interesting, boring, spiteful, stupid, kind, shitty and of other million qualities, but worthy? Hmm...


----------



## Wolfskralle (Nov 29, 2013)

The_Wanderer said:


> In regards to _social status_, if you mean _social stratification _then I find it deplorable. Race, religion, gender, power, money, etc. are disgusting ways to measure and to discriminate against people.
> 
> It's hard to explain precisely, largely due to my own inability, but my line of thought starts more along the lines of _what do they want? __what do they value?_ _what are their goals? what are they skilled at?
> 
> _The word I'm looking for _may_ be meritocracy, but that is still not precise.



Meritocracy, I can't see how it could be practically different from grouping based on achieved social status. I mean potentially, maybe... Ugh, Ne.



ElliCat said:


> Nooo not social status! Maybe if I believed that social status was an inherently worthy thing. But I don't see much value in it so I tend to disregard it.
> 
> It's more about who they are as a person, who they could grow to become, and how that fits in with my own values. I suppose I use that to create my own categories/hierarchy.



So I guess the difference between Beta and Delta Aristocracy would be that Betas group people using existing, outward categories (Fe), while Deltas create own categories (Fi)? Also, I've noticed lots of potentiality here ("_who_ they could grow to become"), which could be expected from NFP's.

I still don't get how aristocratic trait works, meh.


----------



## RK LK (Sep 19, 2013)

I think the dichotomies are great but they can be a confusing and probably need to be worded a little better. So far I've found them to be mostly true for others as well.


----------

