On the Meaning of the Values of Socionic Dyads

This work contains another attempt to construct an internally consistent system interrelating the meanings of the seven Reinin dichotomies that form dyadic values. Among other things, it also explains the direction of relations of supervision and benefit without switching to the language of socionic functions.

Or view it as a JPG file

As can be seen from the attached table (which contains the main information), the origin of dyadic values rests on an idea, brilliant in its simplicity, that was once incorporated into socionics.

Any subject and any system passes through four main stages in its development, the sequence of which is rigidly determined and gives direction to the arrow of time, separating the past and the future.

On the other hand, depending on what a given subject or system values more, one can determine its current position on the time axis - its age.

Thus, in any society there are, literally, children, adolescents, adults, and old people. Every member of this community subjectively assigns themselves to one category or another in accordance with their internal psychological age. Moreover, they also subjectively assign those around them to one category or another (not necessarily the same as their own), and behave toward them accordingly.

To obtain the meaning of a particular Reinin dichotomy involved in forming dyadic values, it is necessary to identify what the theses of the four dyads belonging to the pole of interest have in common.

Thus, RATIONALITY is defined as assigning value to the past and the future - as a consequence of which planning, as a process extended over time, acquires meaning. Planning makes subjects’ behavior more predictable to one another, thereby making joint activity possible and fruitful.

Accordingly, the very philosophy of life of rationals is more focused on interaction and mutual assistance with other members of society, and pays more attention to the psychological age of those around them.

IRRATIONALITY, defined as disregarding the past and the future, by contrast, focuses on satisfying one’s vital needs here and now.

Since vital needs depend on the subject’s age, the irrationals of each quadra turn out to embody its psychological age as projected onto themselves. The rationals, by contrast, embody it as projected onto others.

DECISIVE dyads share the notion that one’s own (both past and future) is more valuable and important than others’ (that is, egoism); JUDICIOUS dyads share the notion that what belongs to others is in some cases of greater value than one’s own (altruism).

In any population, the intermediate age groups are more egoistic - when the subject reaches the optimal condition for struggling for their own interests. By contrast, those at the extremes of age, children and old people, are literally unable to compete owing to their objective weakness, and adhere to more peaceful survival strategies.

DEMOCRACY in this system is literally defined as assigning value to the future while denying the value of the past. ARISTOCRACY, by contrast, gives preference to the past and is characterized by conservative values.

Aristocrats’ preference for unequal relations is also understandable if one takes into account that any aristocratic hierarchy is itself a system of inequality of rights established in the past, usually dominated by older age groups seeking to perpetuate their once-attained successes for all time. Democrats’ striving for progress is also understandable, since hierarchies, as traces of the past, can be overcome and destroyed only by proposing fundamentally new approaches against which hierarchical systems do not yet have immunity.

For RIGHT dyads, attention is focused on the past (with the aim of idealizing or devaluing its specifics); hence the interest of process types in history and politics, in studying the experience accumulated by humanity, recently discovered by V. L. Talanov. For LEFT dyads, result types, who for the most part do not exhibit such an interest, the focus of attention shifts to the future, while the past is taken as a given.

This is precisely why asymmetric relations (supervision and benefit) among right types are oriented in such a way that chronologically preceding quadras always have the advantage in them - literally, among those who are focused on the past, it is the past that wins. Accordingly, left supervision and benefit result in the chronologically subsequent quadra having the advantage - “the future is stronger than the past.”

The CAREFREE focus their attention on what is their own; hence the poor understanding of any external influences that is more characteristic of these dyads, their susceptibility to such influences (since they both monitor external influences less effectively and have something that can be influenced from outside), as well as heightened autonomic responses to unexpected events that are not anticipated in advance. The FARSIGHTED, by contrast, focus their attention on what belongs to others, on what can be done with it; as a consequence, such a subject is from the outset more oriented toward influencing the external world and focuses less on themselves, which in fact makes them more independent.

The merry-serious dichotomy is the very first and foundational one, since the difference between its poles is equivalent to the very direction of the time axis.

Thus, a MERRY worldview can be briefly defined by the formula “the past is mine, the future belongs to others.” This produces an image of an unfolding world in which the individual sees themselves as being at its origins, and therefore as the subject and cause of the entire future. SERIOUSNESS, by contrast, reduces to the formula “the past belongs to others, the future is mine.” Such a subject believes that they live in a world that is folding in on itself, where they are the consequence and objective result of this world’s entire past.

In our view, this interpretation of the dichotomy fits perfectly with the meanings embedded in the definition of this Reinin dichotomy as “subjectivism-objectivism”; it also accords with the understanding of merry types as more “passionary” - psychologically young, believing that much still lies ahead and therefore oriented toward extensive transformation of the world.

Finally, in our view, an interesting interpretation also emerges for the yielding-obstinate dichotomy. The position of the YIELDING is: “you have more past, and I have more future.” This is literally the position of a relatively younger subject. Hence the correlation of yielding with naivety, a “childlike” simplicity of perception of the world (“what I see is what there is”).

The formulation for the OBSTINATE is as follows: “I have more past, and you have more future.” This corresponds to the position of an older subject, seasoned by life. Indeed, obstinacy turns out to correlate with sophistication, with a multiplicity of alternatives in perception - when the thought often arises that “nothing is at all as it seems at first glance.”

Supplement to the Table, 20.07.2023 (Not Published in the VK Group)

Derivation of the semantic content of the Reinin dichotomies (quadra and dyadic values) from the theses proposed above:

• Rationality: the past and the future are valuable and important => therefore planning makes sense
• Irrationality: only the present moment has value
• Democracy: the future is more important than the past => the value of progress
• Aristocracy: the past is more important than the future => conservative values
• Decisiveness: one’s own (both past and future) is more valuable and important than others’ => egoism and self-interest
• Judiciousness: what belongs to others is often more valuable and important than one’s own => altruism and selflessness
• Merriness: the past is one’s own, the future belongs to others => subjectivism: an unfolding world, I am at its origins, I am the subject, the cause of the entire future
• Seriousness: the past belongs to others, the future is one’s own => objectivism: a world that is folding in on itself, I am the consequence and objective result of the entire past
• Rightness (process): attention is focused on the past, the future is taken as a given => interest in history and politics, in analyzing the experience accumulated by humanity
• Leftness (result): attention is focused on the future, the past is taken as a given => a desire to understand how to get oneself and others into shape in order to change the future
• Carefreeness: attention is focused on one’s own, what belongs to others is taken as a given => “let whoever manages what belongs to others continue to manage it; I will not interfere in this”
• Farsightedness: attention is focused on what belongs to others (what can be done with what belongs to others), one’s own is taken as a given => “what happens to what belongs to others depends on me”
• Yielding: I have more future, and you have more past => the position of a child; hence the correlation of yielding with naivety, with an unambiguous perception of the world
• Obstinacy: I have more past, and you have more future => the position of a parent; hence the correlation of obstinacy with sophistication, with a multifaceted perception of the world

Derivation of the semantic content of supervision/benefit rings from the theses proposed above:

Left supervision (struggle for the future, chronologically subsequent quadras dominate):

• LII+ESE: we care about the world’s future < SLE+IEI: and we will burn these works; whoever wins afterward will own the future
• SLE+IEI: we do not care about the common future < ESI+LIE: then the future will be as we build it
• ESI+LIE: we work hard, the payoff will not come soon < IEE+SLI: and we have relaxed and are enjoying life
• IEE+SLI: we do not care about our own future < LII+ESE: then you will adopt the values that we teach everyone

Right supervision (struggle for the past, chronologically preceding quadras dominate):

• EII+LSE: we feel that we owe those who raised us < SEE+ILI: and we believe that we owe nothing to anyone
• SEE+ILI: we do not care what rules everyone lives by < LSI+EIE: then everyone will live by our rules
• LSI+EIE: we are attached to our past < ILE+SEI: and we are free of this burden; we can go wherever we want
• ILE+SEI: we do not care which culture we live in < EII+LSE: then we will teach you the way of life to which we are accustomed

I. Yu. Romanov (socionavigator.com) 10.2021 - 09.2026, CC BY-NC 4.0

When publishing these data on third-party websites, an active hyperlink to socionavigator.com is mandatory.