Toggle Light / Dark / Auto color theme
Toggle table of contents sidebar
Merry and serious
¶
Merry
/
Serious
, also known as
Subjectivist
/
Objectivist
or
Ascending
/
Descending
, is one of the 15
Reinin dichotomies
.
Merry and serious types
¶
Merry types are all
Alpha
and
Beta
types,
namely,
LII
,
ESE
,
SEI
,
ILE
,
LSI
,
EIE
,
IEI
,
SLE
.
Serious types are all
Gamma
and
Delta
types,
namely,
ESI
,
LIE
,
ILI
,
SEE
,
EII
,
LSE
,
SLI
,
IEE
.
Typical characteristics
¶
Merry
¶
Good at noticing emotional background and perceive the emotional
aspect (particularly ‘fun’) separate from the activity.
‘Getting to know someone’ happens naturally, and they are well aware
of the purpose(s) for which they are meeting. The proper emotional
distance is easily established, adapted/regulated, and manipulated,
and they easily decrease distance through their emotional
‘brilliance’. A person’s name (and other formalities) are peripheral
to their relation with and interest in them, and thus they don’t care
much about formal introductions..
Not inclined to deduce ‘objective truths’ from their own and others’
experiences  everything is relative. This relativity is perceived as
an extenuation of the differing beliefs, opinions, intentions, etc.
of each person. Accordingly, another person’s actions are judged as
correct or incorrect according to a set of subjective criteria. They
attempt to compare others’ views to their own, and to explain their
own views in order to make sure that all parties understand the
concepts being spoken of.
They are inclined to propose (or impose) another conception of the
situation (‘look at it this way’). If they think something is done
incorrectly, they will ask WHY it was done that way. When talking
about optimums, they are inclined to do it subjectively (‘optimum
compared to what?’).
Fun is involvement, active participation; a state of constant
excitement that one cannot confuse with leisure or rest. I have my
own ideas about how things should be done  a ‘mind of my own’  but
so does everyone else.
Serious
¶
Bad at noticing emotional background and do not separate the
emotional aspect (particularly ‘fun’) from the activity.
Acquaintance with others is established by ritual (e.g.,
introduction), and they prefer if the context of interaction is
externally set (eg, by a mediator (think ‘arranged marriages’) or
situation) so that they can skip the first phases and begin closer
interaction. They approach others through stages defined by ‘rules’
and ‘rituals’, which may be created by themselves and/or already
existing; thus, they are very aware of the stages of the process of
acquaintance  e.g., when a person is no longer a stranger. The
title, name, and any other information about the other person are
considered important, and for this reason formal introduction is
important.
Inclined to believe there are ‘objective truths’  the truth is not
always relative. Therefore, they believe that there are two types of
actions/perspectives: those which are subjective (connected with
personal preferences and motivations) and those which are objective
(only one ‘correct’ or ‘best’ way of doing something). Whether
something is correct or not is judged by comparing it with what they
see as ‘objectively correct’. In disagreement, they first attempt to
make sure that the other person understands the concepts and terms
‘correctly’.
They are inclined to offer (or impose) what they see as the ‘best’ or
‘correct’ way of doing something (‘it should be done like this’). If
they think something is done incorrectly, they ask WHO did it that
way. When speaking of optimums, they are inclined to do so
objectively (the ‘absolute’ optimum).
It is difficult for me to differentiate between activity/work and
fun; work is necessarily fun  without an element of entertainment,
it would be impossible If something is being done the wrong way?
Oy! IMO, there is only one proper way to ‘hammer a nail’
Extended characteristics
¶
Taken from
2003 study of Reinin traits
.
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
tonethis 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” viewhe 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 somethingin
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 detailhow 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 situationthis 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 persontherefore 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 differentsubjective, 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 LogicObjectivism.
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)”.
Theoretical properties of merry and serious types
¶
Merry/serious corresponds with the
valued
/
subdued
dichotomy for
rational
information elements
:
Merry types (Alphas and Betas) have valued
and subdued
.
Serious types (Gammas and Deltas) have valued
and subdued
.
Type
dichotomies
¶
Rationality and irrationality
Extraversion and introversion
Sensing and intuition
Ethics and logic
Static and dynamic
Process and result
Positivist and negativist
Asking and declaring
Constructivist and emotivist
Carefree and farsighted
Yielding and obstinate
Tactical and strategic
Merry and serious
Judicious and decisive
Asking and declaring