usefulness of typing characters

[reyn_til_runa]

How is typing fictional characters useful to one's understanding of socionics? It may be possible for a writer to create a character of approximate type xxxx, but to get an actor to accurately portray that type seems highly unlikely. I don't understand what you would gain from typing an entire cast of characters of a tv show, for example.

[Joy]

Yes and no. Sometimes a character is so obviously a certain type that pointing him/her out as that type can help others understand what people of that type are like. The problem is that there's no answer key... no way to know if the people who are saying that certain characters are certain types are correct. Not to mention what you just said.

[aestrivex]

The problem is that there's no answer key... no way to know if the people who are saying that certain characters are certain types are correct. Not to mention what you just said.

and you're suggesting there's an answer key IRL?

[Joy]

The problem is that there's no answer key... no way to know if the people who are saying that certain characters are certain types are correct. Not to mention what you just said.

and you're suggesting there's an answer key IRL?

Nope. Going by the typings of celebrities and forum members by "professional" or experienced socionists (lol) or common consensus is equally useless.

[Expat]

Yeah I agree with Joy.

Fictional characters, like celebrities, serve as reference point -- if they are known to everyone, at least you have a common ground to discuss the type. That's the usefulness of the exercise.

[reyn_til_runa]

Yeah I agree with Joy.

Fictional characters, like celebrities, serve as reference point -- if they are known to everyone, at least you have a common ground to discuss the type. That's the usefulness of the exercise.

I see your point, but these are shitty reference points.

The same information is rarely known to everyone unless it's a real live celebrity and everyone reads the latest (probably false) news.

now a character in a somewhat autobiographical fictional work is useful to type the writer of the book, but i still don't see much use in typing the character.

It's like telling somebody that Antarctica is like the inside of your freezer.

[posablethumb]

now a character in a somewhat autobiographical fictional work is useful to type the writer of the book, but i still don't see much use in typing the character.

well maybe how they treat their characters in the book. i know i'd treat the types i don't like in my books like crap. and maybe everybody in my quadra have the same dislike.

[reyn_til_runa]

now a character in a somewhat autobiographical fictional work is useful to type the writer of the book, but i still don't see much use in typing the character.

well maybe how they treat their characters in the book. i know i'd treat the types i don't like in my books like crap. and maybe everybody in my quadra have the same dislike.

True, although it seems that good writers usually maintain critical distance, and, so, treat even the most evil characters humanely.

[Jimbean]

I have thought about this before. My thinking was applied to movies. I thought by using Socionics to build a character in a stereotypical way can be a way for the audience to be familiar to that character.

[Slacker]

I have thought about this before. My thinking was applied to movies. I thought by using Socionics to build a character in a stereotypical way can be a way for the audience to be familiar to that character.

Someone would have to know about Socionics to do that though. It isn't well known enough for it to be likely that's happening much, if at all.

I agree with the reyn. It's pretty darn useless. It's fun to try to type characters but there is seldom if ever a lot of value to it, unless it's just to illustrate a point. But to try to use it in any scientific way, like to rate how good people are at typing? I think that's really silly.

[Jimbean]

I have thought about this before. My thinking was applied to movies. I thought by using Socionics to build a character in a stereotypical way can be a way for the audience to be familiar to that character.

Someone would have to know about Socionics to do that though. It isn't well known enough for it to be likely that's happening much, if at all.

The sterotypical ISXj, for example

You do not have to know what ISXj means to know that you have seen a character like that. How did you start learning socionics?

[Slacker]

I have thought about this before. My thinking was applied to movies. I thought by using Socionics to build a character in a stereotypical way can be a way for the audience to be familiar to that character.

Someone would have to know about Socionics to do that though. It isn't well known enough for it to be likely that's happening much, if at all.

The sterotypical ISXj, for example

You do not have to know what ISXj means to know that you have seen a character like that. How did you start learning socionics?

Not from movies. I started typing myself and other people I know IRL.

[Jimbean]

I started picking up on generalizations, modes of behavior, etc. but by explicitly knowing what is behind that behavior, you might be able to build a character that people really recognize.

This of course is just an example.

[reyn_til_runa]

I started picking up on generalizations, modes of behavior, etc. but by explicitly knowing what is behind that behavior, you might be able to build a character that people really recognize.

This of course is just an example.

Makes sense for the writer, but for the audience?

[Jimbean]

I started picking up on generalizations, modes of behavior, etc. but by explicitly knowing what is behind that behavior, you might be able to build a character that people really recognize.

This of course is just an example.

Makes sense for the writer, but for the audience?

It builds an effect. It is like an archetype. We call him an ESTp, but the audience knows him as the great self-confident hero or hero wanabe. With socionics, you notice smaller behaviors, and by explicitly knowing something, you as the writer has the ability to make the character even more ESTp if need be so that the audience can recognize him better, maybe for the beginning (?) .

[Quirk Satellite Div.]

I was going to chime in on this issue.

I don't fully agree with reyn_til_runa, as I can see some point in using characters as reference points and examples, if they are typed correctly. Not all fictional characters can be typed, as they are after all, fake characters that aren't supposed to have personalities and interactions based around the Socionics model. And there is no proof that people subconsciously model their imaginary characters as real people aka. characters who can be identified as Socionic's types. Scriptwriters, directors, and authors can all design characters that can seem realistic, but under type-analysis, are full of contradictory traits that don't really point to any type, or point to a type rather poorly. At best, a character be a type similar to the actor, designer, or someone the character designer knows. It's probably easier, and ultimately more useful, to type more people. Even though celebrities can be type because a lot of their external character is supposed to be posed. Celebrities are real people though, and ultimately can be modeled by Socionics types. Celebrities make crappy examples though because of people's understanding as celebrities as these personas; just because people hear and read about celebrities in the news doesn't mean that they should go over and try to gather more information about them just as they would with any other famous non-celebrity.

Typing characters in movies don't serve an scientific value to Socionics, however it can be used as a learning tool. Can is the key word though, because from my experience on the forum, it doesn't seem like anyone types characters except for their own self-satisfaction. It seems that most movie character typings made on this forum are dubious, and can't even be used as references.

The sterotypical ISXj, for example

You do not have to know what ISXj means to know that you have seen a character like that. How did you start learning socionics?

I can't say I started understanding Socionics this way. I didn't really look at people's types until I had a better understanding of the abstract, albeit sometimes fuzzy, information about the 16 types.

[Joy]

unless it's just to illustrate a point

that's essentially what I was talking about

[olduser]

I don't understand what you would gain from typing an entire cast of characters of a tv show, for example.

If a group were to type a cast from a TV show they would all be observing and analyzing the same data. Their anaylsis might be wrong, but at least everyone has access to exactly the same information. Information concerning real people is wish-washy and has many biases if it comes from a biography or autobiography. But I think the problem is bigger. We have lots of Socionic information but no exacting crtieria for each type. We have a few ideas and rules we mostly think are true concerning a type, but there are far too many exceptions for the system to be correct and practically applicable. So, typing people is useless until we have a criteria for each type with rules that cannot be broken and have high correlation. Of course, this is impossible, there are far too many circumstances and human beings living out those circumstances for there not be exceptions.

[Exodus]

I started picking up on generalizations, modes of behavior, etc. but by explicitly knowing what is behind that behavior, you might be able to build a character that people really recognize.

This of course is just an example.

Makes sense for the writer, but for the audience?

It builds an effect. It is like an archetype. We call him an ESTp, but the audience knows him as the great self-confident hero or hero wanabe. With socionics, you notice smaller behaviors, and by explicitly knowing something, you as the writer has the ability to make the character even more ESTp if need be so that the audience can recognize him better, maybe for the beginning (?) .

Exactly. I've said this before, as long as you assume that the writers have generally good knowledge of human nature, and the characters have consistent personalities (which is almost always the case) - typing characters is perfectly justifiable, and useful to boot.

[Logos]

Often the amount of information which we receive on the What's My Type subforum about real life people are far less than what we have for these fictional characters, yet we are able to type some of these real people (not entirely accurate typings perhaps) based upon this limited information from which we are told about them. These people still exist and we assume that they are real based upon what we are told about them. While we can try and type the people around us, we cannot be entirely certain - although we can obviously make probable typings - but even then we do not entirely know these people or their true character at times.

As Expat and others have said, fictional characters can serve as a more recognized common reference point for others. I may not know too many of Type Y in real life for whatever reason (perhaps Type Y just avoids my spheres of activity), but it would be beneficial for me to be able to recognize the behavior of Type Y through some other media of which I am familiar that does have a "natural Type Y." I do not know the people who you know, so I do not really have the ability to potentially validify or judge for myself their own character based upon their behavior. Yet I can do so with a fictional character whom is familiar to both me and you. The fictional character may not be a perfect representative of Type X, but then again, real people never are themselves.