Toggle Light / Dark / Auto color theme
Toggle table of contents sidebar
Reinin dichotomies
¶
Reinin dichotomies
or
Reinin traits
refer to a set of 15
type dichotomies
that divide the
socion
into symmetrical halves.
Grigoriy Reinin
(St. Petersburg,
Russia), a mathematician and psychologist and one of the earliest
socionists, mathematically proved the existence of these dichotomies,
and their approximate content was elaborated by
Aushra Augusta
. Her work,
The Theory of Reinin’s Traits
,
published in 1985, was intended to be an introduction to the 15
dichotomies - a draft of sorts - but further works have still not been
written on the subject. The usefulness of many or most Reinin
dichotomies is consistently questioned by many socionists.
The first four dichotomies correspond to the
Jungian foundation
,” or the four original Jungian
dichotomies
.
In common use the term “Reinin dichotomies” often refers to the 11
non-Jungian dichotomies.
Overview
¶
Overview of Reinin Dichotomies
¶
ILE
judicious
subjectivist
democratic
process
carefree
yielding
static
tactical
constructivist
positivist
asking
SEI
judicious
subjectivist
democratic
process
carefree
yielding
dynamic
strategic
emotivist
negativist
declaring
LII
judicious
subjectivist
democratic
result
farsighted
obstinate
static
strategic
emotivist
negativist
asking
ESE
judicious
subjectivist
democratic
result
farsighted
obstinate
dynamic
tactical
constructivist
positivist
declaring
EIE
decisive
subjectivist
aristocratic
process
carefree
obstinate
dynamic
strategic
constructivist
negativist
asking
LSI
decisive
subjectivist
aristocratic
process
carefree
obstinate
static
tactical
emotivist
positivist
declaring
IEI
decisive
subjectivist
aristocratic
result
farsighted
yielding
dynamic
tactical
emotivist
positivist
asking
SLE
decisive
subjectivist
aristocratic
result
farsighted
yielding
static
strategic
constructivist
negativist
declaring
SEE
decisive
objectivist
democratic
process
farsighted
obstinate
static
strategic
emotivist
positivist
asking
ILI
decisive
objectivist
democratic
process
farsighted
obstinate
dynamic
tactical
constructivist
negativist
declaring
ESI
decisive
objectivist
democratic
result
carefree
yielding
static
tactical
constructivist
negativist
asking
LIE
decisive
objectivist
democratic
result
carefree
yielding
dynamic
strategic
emotivist
positivist
declaring
LSE
judicious
objectivist
aristocratic
process
farsighted
yielding
dynamic
tactical
emotivist
negativist
asking
EII
judicious
objectivist
aristocratic
process
farsighted
yielding
static
strategic
constructivist
positivist
declaring
SLI
judicious
objectivist
aristocratic
result
carefree
obstinate
dynamic
strategic
constructivist
positivist
asking
IEE
judicious
objectivist
aristocratic
result
carefree
obstinate
static
tactical
emotivist
negativist
declaring
Mathematics
¶
Definition
¶
Each half of a dichotomy is called a “trait”. Any pair of traits (such
as E and P) may be combined to produce a third (static). These three
traits form an interdependent triad, meaning that when two are held
constant the third must too.
They are combined according to the relation *, defined as follows.
X*Y
=
(X
&
Y)
or
(~X
&
~Y)
where ~X denotes the opposite of trait X (~E = I, etc.)
Thus,
static
=
E*P
=
E&P
or
I&J
In most cases, the “&” is understood.
static
=
EP
or
IJ
The relation * can be seen to be associative, meaning
(X*Y)*Z
=
X*(Y*Z)
is always true.
Proof:
The relation may be restated more concisely as follows:
X*Y
=
(X
==
Y)
where == denotes
logical
equality
-
parentheses added for clarity.
We can use a truth table to show that the expressions are the same:
X
Y
Z
(X==Y)==Z
X==(Y==Z)
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
F
F
F
T
F
T
F
F
T
F
F
T
T
F
T
T
F
F
F
T
F
T
T
F
F
T
T
T
F
F
F
F
F
Another property of ==, commutativity, transfers to *:
X*Y
=
Y*X
Since * is both associative and commutative, it forms an
abelian
group over four
traits:
*
1
X
Y
Z
1
1
X
Y
Z
X
X
1
Z
Y
Y
Y
Z
1
X
Z
Z
Y
X
1
Here 1 is the identity, which represents the trait that is true of all
types. It might also be called the “nonnull” trait. Here X, Y, and Z are
all interdependent.
Complete list
¶
Given four initial independent dichotomies (that is, pairs of opposite
traits), one can form new ones dependent on the original four. Here the
“&”s may be understood, so as to simplify the generation of new
dichotomies. Remember, * is associative and commutative, so the order
doesn’t matter, and the *s can be left out. For example, E*N = N*E and
(E*N)*T = E*(N*T). This means we can just write, in order, the Jungian
dichotomies a derived dichotomy depends on. In other words, each new
dichotomy can be uniquely specified in terms of dependence on each of
the original four. (In this case, each dichotomy can be replaced by one
of its halves, the corresponding traits. For example, E/I can be
replaced with just E or just I. The lack of a unifying name for most
dichotomies makes this a convenient choice. ENTP is the preferred basis,
for historical reasons.) So, each new dichotomy is either
dependent
or
independent
of each original dichotomy. This produces 2^4 = 16
dichotomies.
The first of these, the one dependent on
no
Jungian dichotomy, is the
identity - not a dichotomy proper, as it does not split the
socion
. The remaining 15 are the type dichotomies we know
and love.
(null/nonnull)
E (extroversion/introversion)
N (intuitive/sensing)
T (logical/ethical)
P (irrational/rational)
EN (carefree/farsighted)
ET (obstinate/compliant)
EP (static/dynamic)
NT (aristocratic/democratic)
NP (tactical/strategic)
TP (constructivist/emotivist)
ENT (positivist/negativist)
ENP (reasonable/resolute)
ETP (subjectivist/objectivist)
NTP (process/result)
ENTP (questioner/declarer)
It is natural to classify these dichotomies based on how many of the
Jungian foundation they depend on. The Jungian foundation is all the
order-1 traits, and null/nonnull are the only order-0 traits.
Reinin dichotomies as combinations
¶
From the above proof, we see that the Reinin dichotomies can be thought
of as combinations of the original four.
C = n!/(k!(n-k)!)
Where k is the number of elements in the subset and n is the number of
elements in the set that is drawn from.
Here there are 4 elements in the original set (E-I, N-S, T-F and P-J).
The new sets will have between 2 to 4 parameters, so the number of
Reinin dichotomies (not including the original four) is:
4!/(2!(4-2)!) + 4!/(3!(4-3)!) + 4!/(4!(4-4)!) = 6 + 4 + 1 = 11
It’s also easy to find out the combinations on pen and paper. Simply
find all the ways you can combine four predefined letters (or any other
things) into groups of two, three and four, where the order doesn’t
matter.
Use of Reinin dichotomies
¶
Empirical aspects
¶
Above is the mathematical definition of the Reinin dichotomies. Whether
they have empirical content, on the other hand, is a completely separate
matter. Whether they are well-defined at all is one of the main
criticisms of Reinin dichotomies.
The content of several of the derived dichotomies comes naturally from
other standard parts of socionics theory. As the correspondence between
the dichotomies and
Model A
becomes more complex, so does
the dichotomy’s content become less obvious based on purely theoretical
considerations.
Some of the simpler correspondences between the functional and
dichotomous models:
Intuitive/sensing and logic/ethics determine a type’s
strengths and
weaknesses
; Introversion/extroversion coincides
with the orientation of the leading function (as well as all
contact
functions); Rationality/irrationality similarly
coincides with the “rhythm” of the accepting functions; Static/dynamic
determines the conscious (“
mental
”) elements in each types
formula; Aristocratic/democratic determines which elements are blocked
together; Reasonable/resolute and subjectivist/objectivist correspond to
quadra values
;
An interesting question is, can Reinin dichotomies be considered equal
in their significance to the original Jungian dichotomies? After all,
the derivation works in reverse too. Only speculation can provide an
answer at this point. A humorous counterexample is the dichotomies of
gender and blood type (reference). Obviously the conjunction of the two
via * is totally meaningless. That said, the fact that Reinin
dichotomies’ content can be elaborated at all is a testament to the
highly general nature of socionic type, whose component dichotomies
combine to form an integrated whole, represented mathematically as the
nonnull trait: the human being.
Comparison with Model A
¶
The central idea of socionics is that types are unbalanced entities.
This understanding is built into Model A, but not into Reinin
dichotomies. Therefore, Reinin dichotomies must be supplemented with
other theoretical apparatus in order to explain things like
relationships as fully as Model A. This could be a good thing in that
Reinin dichotomies show the theoretical possibility of isolating the
assumptions implicit in Model A and showing which are independent of
which.
A few socionists, such as Mironov and others from St. Petersburg,
consider the Reinin dichotomies to actually be information processing
mechanisms. Three such dichotomy traits combine to form an information
element. Most socionists consider the Reinin dichotomies to be divisions
whose meaning can only be understood by analyzing their effect on Model A.
Criticism
¶
It might be said that the Reinin traits should be treated dichotomously
instead of, or at least in addition to, in terms of information elements
and Model A. The fundamental difference between rational and irrational
information elements is not built into the Reinin model. Also, it has no
concept of element dominance (i.e. functional ordering). It doesn’t
necessarily render the tools used in Model A useless, but it should be
stressed that the classical traits have a purely dichotomous definition,
so they should also be explainable using only dichotomies. In fact it is
likely that any regular categorization system will also be reflected in
Model A in some more or less regular waythis observation doesn’t prove
anything however.
Possible dichotomous explanations
¶
The most natural way to discover the meaning of the dichotomies is as a
conflict or harmonizing of some sort between pairs of traits. For
example, rationals want stability, but dynamics perceive change,
creating a tendency for EJs to want to actively influence their
environment to control that change - extroversion. Likewise, irrationals
are more comfortable with fluid change, but statics see things as
staying the same - which leads them to actively create the change in
their environment (also extroversion).
An interesting area of research here would be interclub or
intertemperament relationships. We would also need to establish
descriptions for the other multiple-dichotomical categories, such as E/I
combined with S/N, and so on.
See also
¶
Dichotomy
Jungian foundation
Links
¶
Here are automatic translations of articles on the Reinin dichotomies in
Russian:
Wikipedia article on the Reinin dichotomies
Introductory article
by
Dmitriy Lytov
and Marianna Lytova on the Reinin traits
Analysis and criticism of the Reinin traits
by
Dmitriy Lytov
and Marianna Lytova
Reinin’s response to the above criticism of the dichotomies
Augusta’s
article
The Theory of Reinin’s Traits
:
part 1
-
part 2
-
part 3
-
part 4
-
part 5