Possible procedure to estimate typing accuracy

[machintruc]

1. Socionist will be required to watch either an hollywoodian movie, or an episode or whole season of a series. He could do that on ER or Third Watch or such series. For example, I did such typings on ER here : oldforumlinkviewtopic.php?t=11573.

2. Socionist will do absolute typing - it means, typing by elements, traits and quaternions. Relative typing doesn't work in movies. He will have to type 20 characters which would be stipulated on some sort of list.

3. Socionist will compare his typings to professional typings. His accuracy will be measured like this :

Same type : 5 points
Mirror (Function 1 and 2 are reversed) : 3 points
Comparative or Look-a-Like (either function 1 or 2 is the same, not both) : 1 point

For each of the 20 characters which would have to be typed. Any other typings would be scored zero.

For example, Kerry Weaver (ER) is considered a LII.

Typing her LII would be right : 5 points.
Typing her ILE instead would demonstrate some accuracy : 3 points.
Typing her LSI or EII instead would demonstrate distant accuracy : 1 point.

4. It will make a percentage-like score. An average professional socionist should have 70-80% accuracy. Professional Socionists can do accidentally bogus typings so it will be rather presented as a +-5% interval. Having scored 83 would mean having a typing accuracy of 78-88%.

[leckysupport]

For example, Kerry Weaver (ER) is considered a LII.

This is where the problem comes in.
Is Kerry Weaver really a LII? According to who? How did they work this out? etc.

[machintruc]

For example, Kerry Weaver (ER) is considered a LII.

This is where the problem comes in.
Is Kerry Weaver really a LII? According to who? How did they work this out? etc.

1. I read somewhere she was myersian INTJ.
2. Every fan of ER knows the reserved, neutral, and authoritarian attitude she has...
3. She's more caracteristic of the strong-balanced-inert temperament.
4. She's very absent-minded, which is caracteristic of the intuitive types (some could think Kerry can be LSI)
5. She seems very inquisitive, which is caracteristic of asking types.
6. She can be pretty friendly and empathetic at times. More F-role than F-program though.
7. She's very reactive to problems which she tries to solve, which is caracteristic of negativist-judging types.
8. She seems to manage with a more stability-driven style than efficiency-driven style (in contrast to Romano, which is LSE), so more White Logic than Black Logic.

I'm 95% sure she's LII. Although I read some myersian descriptions of ER characters, typings on that topic are purely mine.

For example :

Benton has been typed ISTJ, I typed him LIE.
Romano has been typed ENTJ, I typed him LSE.
Lewis has been typed INTP, I typed her LSI.

Luka has been typed INFJ, I typed him EII (but SEI first)
Abby has been typed ISFJ, I typed her ESI.
Samantha has been typed ESTJ, I typed her LSE.

[Kristiina]

The idea is good.

[Slacker]

Is this a fictional character. I don't believe there is any way to type a fictional character 100% because they aren't real people and aren't reacting to their environments naturally. They aren't any particular type 100%. Whatever personality they have is influenced by the screenwriter, the director, the producer, and the actor, who might all be different types.

[tcaudilllg]

Standardized testing or nothing.

[machintruc]

Is this a fictional character. I don't believe there is any way to type a fictional character 100% because they aren't real people and aren't reacting to their environments naturally. They aren't any particular type 100%. Whatever personality they have is influenced by the screenwriter, the director, the producer, and the actor, who might all be different types.

Having a type is only giving and understanding more some aspects of information than others.

Of course fictional characters can be typed.

But interrelationships between fictional characters don't fit the socionic thing, because americans are myersian-influenced. For example, T-types get more along each other, and F-types get more along each other. F and T hates each other. This contradicts socionic theory. They work more by traits than elements.

For example, Luka is EII, Sam is LSE - they are duals but Sam is accusing Luka of bad communication ? and even of being passive-aggressive ! This is the classic pretended incompatibility in heterovert relationships.

Socionics explains why types tend to seem heartless to types and so cool and interesting to types.

[Slacker]

Types belong to real people. Real people naturally do things a certain way based on their lifestyle, their history, their type, etc. Characters are fictional - entirely made up - and don't do anything naturally. They are not necessarily any type consistently, if they are any particular type ever. It really depends on how well written they are, and on how much of the actor's personality, the writer's personality, etc., are included in the character, how well the character is received and whether the character is changed at any point to improve ratings, etc.

You can type real people because they naturally behave in a way that is consistent with their type. There is no reason a character, whose lines are written by one person and spoken by another, is going to follow anything consistently. This is so silly I don't understand why I have to explain it.

[machintruc]

Types belong to real people. Real people naturally do things a certain way based on their lifestyle, their history, their type, etc. Characters are fictional - entirely made up - and don't do anything naturally. They are not necessarily any type consistently, if they are any particular type ever. It really depends on how well written they are, and on how much of the actor's personality, the writer's personality, etc., are included in the character, how well the character is received and whether the character is changed at any point to improve ratings, etc.

You can type real people because they naturally behave in a way that is consistent with their type. There is no reason a character, whose lines are written by one person and spoken by another, is going to follow anything consistently. This is so silly I don't understand why I have to explain it.

Experienced comedians can. I disagree with you. It's possible to type fictional people. Hollywoodian actors are pretty good. If Hollywood can do complicated special effects, why can't Hollywood create realistic characters ?

Nobody will ask an LII to play a SEE. That's nonsense. It's easier to display a fictional type which is nearer to the real type.

That's an argument to say why fictional types are very realistical. Possibly, Hollywood is doing Socionics and are keeping that secret ?

[Expat]

If Hollywood can do complicated special effects, why can't Hollywood create realistic characters ?

I find this question absurd.

I don't think anyone's saying that no fictional characters can ever be typed - rather, that we shouldn't assume that they can be typed.

Fictional characters are created, primarily, by the author. Authors tend to create characters based either on one particular individual they know or read about - in that case the type will be preserved. Or they will create characters based on composites of individuals - then the types will be mixed. Finally, they can create characters out of "build a character" formulae.

Further, the screenplay writing in Hollywood is often a confusion of many hands.

To give an example I happen to know something about, Ben Hur. First, there was the novel by Lew Wallace. Then a guy called Karl Turnberg wrote a script based on that novel.

Then the director, William Wyler, and the producer, Sam Zimbalist, thought that Turnberg's script was crap and, even as shooting had already started, they hired two writers to re-write the script, Gore Vidal and Christopher Fry. Vidal rewrote the first half - down to the chariot race - and Fry the second half. Then, Vidal left during shooting and Fry re-wrote part of what Vidal had re-written.

Among other things, in the scene where Charlton Heston and Stephen Boyd meet for the first time in the movie, Vidal had told Boyd - but not Heston - to play it as if Boyd's character had a sort of homoerotic feeling for Ben Hur.

Then you have the personality of the actors.

Finally, in other movies, some powerful actors will insist on playing the character differently from the script in certain scenes - like Marlon Brando in Apocalypse Now.

Etc etc etc.

That's an argument to say why fictional types are very realistical. Possibly, Hollywood is doing Socionics and are keeping that secret ?

Sure

[machintruc]

Fictional characters are created, primarily, by the author. Authors tend to create characters based either on one particular individual they know or read about - in that case the type will be preserved. Or they will create characters based on composites of individuals - then the types will be mixed. Finally, they can create characters out of "build a character" formulae.

Mixed types don't exist. Types actually derive from information aspects, which are 16. Each type has a dominant information aspect.

When the writer imagined Kerry, he imagined her with dominating -. No matter the terms to express that, but it was -. He probably didn't know it was -. Why is the function 1 called "Programme" ? Because it's the programme, dude...

I'm saying it again - it's not that difficult to simulate information aspects. Probably Laura Innes is LII or a neighbour type herself.

Romano seems to be an LSE + played by an ESI -. Even if he could distantly have traces of ESI, LSE seems more relevent to type Romano.

[Gilly]

Fictional characters are created, primarily, by the author. Authors tend to create characters based either on one particular individual they know or read about - in that case the type will be preserved. Or they will create characters based on composites of individuals - then the types will be mixed. Finally, they can create characters out of "build a character" formulae.

Mixed types don't exist. Types actually derive from information aspects, which are 16. Each type has a dominant information aspect.

When the writer imagined Kerry, he imagined her with dominating -. No matter the terms to express that, but it was -. He probably didn't know it was -. Why is the function 1 called "Programme" ? Because it's the programme, dude...

I'm saying it again - it's not that difficult to simulate information aspects. Probably Laura Innes is LII or a neighbour type herself.

Romano seems to be an LSE + played by an ESI -. Even if he could distantly have traces of ESI, LSE seems more relevent to type Romano.

Sorry, buddy. Writers don't analyze informational elements. They create personalities, which aren't always consistent with single types of information metabolizing. Try to find a book where enough of what the character says can be analyzed and is consistent with one type.

[machintruc]

Sorry, buddy. Writers don't analyze informational elements. They create personalities, which aren't always consistent with single types of information metabolizing. Try to find a book where enough of what the character says can be analyzed and is consistent with one type.

Writer can imagine a - character and not calling that -, dude.

[tcaudilllg]

Is this a fictional character. I don't believe there is any way to type a fictional character 100% because they aren't real people and aren't reacting to their environments naturally. They aren't any particular type 100%. Whatever personality they have is influenced by the screenwriter, the director, the producer, and the actor, who might all be different types.

PoLR, anybody?

[Gilly]

Sorry, buddy. Writers don't analyze informational elements. They create personalities, which aren't always consistent with single types of information metabolizing. Try to find a book where enough of what the character says can be analyzed and is consistent with one type.

Writer can imagine a - character and not calling that -, dude.

Try again.

[tcaudilllg]

Sorry, buddy. Writers don't analyze informational elements. They create personalities, which aren't always consistent with single types of information metabolizing. Try to find a book where enough of what the character says can be analyzed and is consistent with one type.

Writer can imagine a - character and not calling that -, dude.

Try again.

Actually Gilligan, in my experience (professional) fictional sources are just as reliable as real people are for purposes of type analysis. In fact, because fictional sources are often exagerrated, they are oftentimes easier to type and examine than real people.

That said, intuition is very potent at matching concepts to each other and oftentimes a person can be found (in Hollywood, especially) who can treat the part of a character perfectly.

[Slacker]

Oooh I see. Your "professional" experience says they're reliable. Well why didn't you say so! Let's all let common sense slide and follow Tc's "professional" experience.



Such complete and utter bullshit. This is killing me.

[tcaudilllg]

Not as much as your idiocy disparages me. That's not what I meant, obviously.

Moron.

[Joy]

boooooooooooooooooo

[olduser]

Sorry, buddy. Writers don't analyze informational elements. They create personalities, which aren't always consistent with single types of information metabolizing. Try to find a book where enough of what the character says can be analyzed and is consistent with one type.

Writer can imagine a - character and not calling that -, dude.

this is very reasonable. Ti and behaviours related to it have been described by people unaware of socionics. No one, fictional or real, is an exact representation of Ti. But given that television characters have to have a broad appeal you can assume that the author is using simple, and basic behaviours of the psychological functions to appeal to the viewers out there(this simplicity of personality makes fictional characters very good examples in socionics) who enjoy seeing that function manifested. It's still not science.

[Expat]

Fictional characters are created, primarily, by the author. Authors tend to create characters based either on one particular individual they know or read about - in that case the type will be preserved. Or they will create characters based on composites of individuals - then the types will be mixed. Finally, they can create characters out of "build a character" formulae.

Mixed types don't exist. Types actually derive from information aspects, which are 16. Each type has a dominant information aspect.

I never said that mixed types exist -- but you can make a fictional character a mixture of types.

Is this a fictional character. I don't believe there is any way to type a fictional character 100% because they aren't real people and aren't reacting to their environments naturally. They aren't any particular type 100%. Whatever personality they have is influenced by the screenwriter, the director, the producer, and the actor, who might all be different types.

PoLR, anybody?

The only thing I disagree with in Slacker Mom's comments is that she seems to go the other way and say that no fictional characters can be typed.

I think that some fictional characters can be easily typed, others will be a mix but resembling mostly one type, and others will be totally untypable. It all depends on how the character was written.

But given that television characters have to have a broad appeal you can assume that the author is using simple, and basic behaviours of the psychological functions to appeal to the viewers out there(this simplicity of personality makes fictional characters very good examples in socionics) who enjoy seeing that function manifested. It's still not science.

That's a good point, perhaps a case can be made that the most appealing characters are those with the most consistent type, but again we have to be clear on which characters we are talking about. I don't think a general rule can be applied.

Let's try to type Homer Simpson. Can you really find a type that is consistent with his behavior throughout all episodes?

[Slacker]

I think fictional characters can be typed with varying levels of accuracy. Some with a high degree, but I think the majority are a mixture of types. It isn't scientific enough to be used the way machintruc wants to use it.

[machintruc]

I think fictional characters can be typed with varying levels of accuracy. Some with a high degree, but I think the majority are a mixture of types. It isn't scientific enough to be used the way machintruc wants to use it.

So how do we measure socionists' accuracy ?

[Joy]

I think fictional characters can be typed with varying levels of accuracy. Some with a high degree, but I think the majority are a mixture of types. It isn't scientific enough to be used the way machintruc wants to use it.

You are completely correct. I have a hard time understanding why this is so difficult for some people to understand.

So how do we measure socionists' accuracy ?

That is my problem with this whole idea to begin with. There's no answer key. We'll never know anyone's type FOR SURE.

[machintruc]

So how do we measure socionists' accuracy ?

That is my problem with this whole idea to begin with. There's no answer key. We'll never know anyone's type FOR SURE.

On a socionic website I read that their accuracy of typing is 70% ; how did they determine that ? (they are professional socionists)

[Joy]

Maybe they assumed that the types they agreed on were correct? Seems foolish to me.

[Expat]

I agree with Joy.

There is simply no way to be certain of one individual's type. I think the closest we can get to 100% certainty is in a case such as Slacker Mom's, where her own characteristics fit a type, as do the characteristics of the people she has closer contact with, and their relationships also fit what's expected according to Socionics. The likelihood that she has been mistyped becomes increasingly small.

If you can observe a group of people who are naturally drawn together (without any external factor "forcing" them together), and how they behave as a group, and each person's behavior in the group and how they relate to each other, you can alsdo probably reach almost 100% certainty of their types.

But not through methods focusing on a person separately from others.

[machintruc]

If you can observe a group of people who are naturally drawn together (without any external factor "forcing" them together), and how they behave as a group, and each person's behavior in the group and how they relate to each other, you can alsdo probably reach almost 100% certainty of their types.

This is relative method, which doesn't work with movies. Relationships in movies are better in what Gulenko calls "Communication Style Groups" or IT, ET, EF, and IF groups. These dimensions are what Americans tend to consider the most important. (i.e. initiating/responding, people-oriented/task-oriented)

I used relative method at times, once it helped me to diagnose a girl SLI rather than LSI.

If you're doing relative method on a group bias, be wary, because persons in groups get along each other, but in different ways. You could accidentally confuse Clubs with Quadras for example.

For example, this forum is mainly going by Club NT, and we get along to each other. Even if Light NT and Heavy NT does distantly.

[tcaudilllg]

I agree with Joy.

There is simply no way to be certain of one individual's type. I think the closest we can get to 100% certainty is in a case such as Slacker Mom's, where her own characteristics fit a type, as do the characteristics of the people she has closer contact with, and their relationships also fit what's expected according to Socionics. The likelihood that she has been mistyped becomes increasingly small.

If you can observe a group of people who are naturally drawn together (without any external factor "forcing" them together), and how they behave as a group, and each person's behavior in the group and how they relate to each other, you can alsdo probably reach almost 100% certainty of their types.

But not through methods focusing on a person separately from others.

I disagree. I would agree that no methods now exist to guarantee typing accuracy, but I completely disagree that absolute certainty of a person's type is impossible.

Although I would note that if one attempts to frame the phrases of a person's writing in terms of the eight elements, consistent patterns appear to be discernable.

[Expat]

If you're doing relative method on a group bias, be wary, because persons in groups get along each other, but in different ways. You could accidentally confuse Clubs with Quadras for example.

I don't think so.

For example, this forum is mainly going by Club NT, and we get along to each other. Even if Light NT and Heavy NT does distantly.

First, there is also a large number of NFs here, perhaps nowadays nearly as many as NTs.

Second, it's a different situation. The clubs are what gets people together in terms of discussing common interests or participating in activities. But if large enough, soon the quadra-based subgroups will form within the club-based group.

[olduser]

That's a good point, perhaps a case can be made that the most appealing characters are those with the most consistent type, but again we have to be clear on which characters we are talking about. I don't think a general rule can be applied.

Let's try to type Homer Simpson. Can you really find a type that is consistent with his behavior throughout all episodes?

I thought, but didn't post, that television drama series/a few non-comedic movies are the only sort of media with characters for typing. Comedies sacrifice a lot of character development and consistency for jokes. But dramas do so less, and usually try to maintain character development and traits within changing situations.

[Expat]

I thought, but didn't post, that television drama series/a few non-comedic movies are the only sort of media with characters for typing. Comedies sacrifice a lot of character development and consistency for jokes. But dramas do so less, and usually try to maintain character development and traits within changing situations.

Ok, fair enough.

Look, I do think some fictional characters can be reasonably typed, I have also typed many. The problem I have with machintruc's proposal is the idea that fictional character's types should be used as a sort of benchmark.

[machintruc]

I thought, but didn't post, that television drama series/a few non-comedic movies are the only sort of media with characters for typing. Comedies sacrifice a lot of character development and consistency for jokes. But dramas do so less, and usually try to maintain character development and traits within changing situations.

Ok, fair enough.

Look, I do think some fictional characters can be reasonably typed, I have also typed many. The problem I have with machintruc's proposal is the idea that fictional character's types should be used as a sort of benchmark.

If you're a fan of ER which disagrees with more than 25-30% of my typings, then it would prove you were true.

I didn't find any better remote benchmarking ways yet.

[Expat]

If you're a fan of ER which disagrees with more than 25-30% of my typings, then it would prove you were true.

Unfortunately for the sake of this exercise, I'm not -- I have no idea about ER's characters.

[Slacker]

Machintruc - did you see that Rick is working on a benchmarking project?

[tcaudilllg]

That's a good point, perhaps a case can be made that the most appealing characters are those with the most consistent type, but again we have to be clear on which characters we are talking about. I don't think a general rule can be applied.

Let's try to type Homer Simpson. Can you really find a type that is consistent with his behavior throughout all episodes?

I thought, but didn't post, that television drama series/a few non-comedic movies are the only sort of media with characters for typing. Comedies sacrifice a lot of character development and consistency for jokes. But dramas do so less, and usually try to maintain character development and traits within changing situations.

This is one virtue of typing through videogames. The characters are designed by professionals who cooperate with the scenario writers to portray the character effectively. Over the course of a game a character's type appears completely constant; however, a character may be reinvisioned in later installments of a game series, sometimes accounting for changes in their type. (this change will always be reflected by a corresponding change in the character's physical features.)

However, some characters, such as Lezard Valeth and Sephiroth, are so iconic as to be consistently portrayed as the same type. Lezard possessed interests and motives that could only be held by INTjs, and Sephiroth's poise and elegance could only be demonstrated by INFps. Also worth nothing is that enneagram is a known tool of Japanese character designers.

I think that if we understood how character designers are educated in their craft (and I believe there are courses for that purpose), then we could better determine how type plays into their creations. This understanding could assist us in the creation of a test along the lines of what Machinetruc has suggested.

For the purposes of the test itself, I think it would be more appropriate to hire professional actors whose types are already well understood, then have them act out their types according to a script agreed upon by socionists as representative of the type. There should be no room for the expression of the opinion of the socionists themselves as regards a person's knowledge of socionics. Such judgements will be abused, my D in anthropology last semester is a testament to that. Standardized testing or nothing.

[machintruc]

Machintruc - did you see that Rick is working on a benchmarking project?

He's benchmarking celebrities, I'm benchmarking fictional characters.

[tcaudilllg]

I've had it in mind to create a wiki for this sort of thing for a while.

[olduser]

Look, I do think some fictional characters can be reasonably typed, I have also typed many. The problem I have with machintruc's proposal is the idea that fictional character's types should be used as a sort of benchmark.

Fictional characters could create a very good benchmark system. The only data of fictional characters is in their media. There are not biases, poor information, biographies, or anything like this that would limit or overload the amount of information available to each individual to use in typing. When we type a famous scientist, like einstein, we usually have to analyze information of his personal life from a biography, his professional advancements, etc. Not everyone has the same information to guage and pronounce his type. This makes some people's typings one sided if they have only biographical information, and others using solely analysis of his scientific theories(this benchmark project assumes no one is an expert on the life of einstein). Since fictional characters are rarely scrutinized in this manner they are ideal. Everyone would be analyzing the same data. We wouldn't have someone with expert knowledge from an autobiography. The next question is whether entertainment media accurately portrays the human condition. Can these fictional characters really represent personalities or are the circumstances surrounding their existence too far from reality? I'm not sure. Anyhow, if we are going to benchmark types, we need rules and limitations on the information which can be used to type a person.