Reinin Dichotomies

Reinin Dichotomies: Research Results

Notes

Introduction

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.

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).

JUDICIOUS | DECISIVE

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 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.

STATICS | DYNAMICS

Statics 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. [example]

When statics 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 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.

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 Dynamics 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.

PROCESS | RESULT (Right - Left, Evolutionary - Involutionary)

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 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".

POSITIVISM | NEGATIVISM

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 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").

ASKERS | DECLARERS

Askers have a tendency to use interrogative intonations. Their statements sound far less categorical than those of declarers.

Askers 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.

When declarers 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.

Declarers 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.

TACTICS | STRATEGY

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)

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.

CONSTRUCTIVISM | EMOTIVISM

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.

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.

COMPLIANCE | OBSTINACY

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.)

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).

CARELESSNESS | FORESIGHT

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".

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).

DEMOCRATISM | ARISTOCRATISM

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").

The aristocrat frequently perceives and defines himself an other people through group associations (division into groups can occur based on almost any criteria: professional, which floor they live on, age, nationality, place of residence, 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.

Summary

Andreeva GM Social Psychology. - Moscow: Aspekt Press, 1998.

Augustinavichyute Theory Reynina signs. Essay on Socionics / / Socionics, Mentology and personality psychology. - 1998. - № 1-6.

Gulenko VV Tyshchenko VP Jung in school. - Novosibirsk, 1997.

Reynin GR group of bipolar symptoms in the typology of Jung / / Socionics, Mentology and personality psychology. - 1996. - № 6.

Reynin GR Morphology of small groups / / Socionics, Mentology and personality psychology. - 2001. - № 2.

Reynin G. R. Theoretical analysis of typological descriptions of personality in psychology / / Socionics, Mentology and personality psychology. 1999. - № 4-6.

Reynin GR typology of Jung as a mathematical object. Main results / / Socionics, Mentology and personality psychology. - 1996. - № 6.

Filatov ES Socionics for all. Science communication, understanding and harmony. - St.: B & K, 1999.

.