How do you diagnose types ?

[machintruc]

There are different means to diagnose types. Personally I use a sort of mix between dichotomous typing and element typing.

More precisely :

Step 1 : Find relevant traits, temperaments and interaction styles (basic and derivative)

Step 2 : Find contradictory manifestations - they usually indicate for auxilliary element - for example : Gulenko says that Introtims have deep interests, and Extrotims have wide. Le Pen is clearly an Extrotim but has this characteristic common to Introtims (dominant aspect of introtimness). So I considered this auxilliary and typed Le Pen EIE. I'm pretty sure this is right because my mother has this Introtim-related characteristic and is herself EIE.

Step 3 : Verify manifestations of elements. For example, elements of functions 1, 2, 7 and 8 have somehow equal strength, but 1 and 2 are more differentiated. A LII likes efficiency (), but has usually a hard time to be efficient himself.

[snegledmaca]

I type solely on intertype relationships where the type and personality information about a person is only the most prominent and distinguishable, or in other words, only the undeniable information. Or what I have previously determined.

It goes like this, activity with a rational type -> irrational type, good relations with a type -> values , lets assume they are extrovert, let's see how it fits into the picture, oh-oh, it doesn't fit as the relations with a predetermined ego are all messed up... and so on. Play with different possibilities and interconnections until it all simply "snaps into place". Until that happens a persons type remains a mystery to me (Though the possibilities are usually narrowed down). Often a lot of vague possibilities for different people will leave only one option for a third person whose type I can then determine and use as a reference point. It's like assembling a big puzzle.

[FDG]

I type solely on intertype relationships where the type and personality information about a person is only the most prominent and distinguishable, or in other words, only the undeniable information. Or what I have previously determined.

It goes like this, activity with a rational type -> irrational type, good relations with a type -> values , lets assume they are extrovert, let's see how it fits into the picture, oh-oh, it doesn't fit as the relations with a predetermined ego are all messed up... and so on. Play with different possibilities and interconnections until it all simply "snaps into place". Until that happens a persons type remains a mystery to me (Though the possibilities are usually narrowed down). Often a lot of vague possibilities for different people will leave only one option for a third person whose type I can then determine and use as a reference point. It's like assembling a big puzzle.

I completely agree.

[Exodus]

Well first I take out my stethoscope...

[olduser]

carefully. I like to study a person at a time. I don't use lots of terminology outside of functions, quadras, etc. I prefer to take a person of a type and describe their actions outside of socionics terms, but with socionics in mind. This way I can maintain a sense of humanity, and connection to the real world. I think a real world perspective on socionics is better than lists of dichotomies. We are dealing with irrational humans and a battery of tests is going to net you poor results.

[Exodus]

Well first I take out my stethoscope...

Bionicgoat mentioned something about a rectal exam once.

That is a line of research I do not wish to pursue.

But hey, if that's what you like...

[Exodus]

Well first I take out my stethoscope...

Bionicgoat mentioned something about a rectal exam once.

That is a line of research I do not wish to pursue.

But hey, if that's what you like...

Er ... maybe not.

On the other hand, if a true unification of the sciences is our goal, then it has to happen eventually, right?

Sociorectology: the wave of the future.

[Creepy-bg]

I'm glad to see that my brilliance spreads even when I'm not around

[theMime.]

How do you type people? What do you do to determine someone's type? Tell me about it. Thanks.

[xyz]

I hit them with my type stick, and it reads out their type. What's more to say, mime?

[Creepy-Cyclops]

I'll try put a decent post up for you later, but in the meantime I judge it almost entirely on their hairstyle and what type of shoes their wearing. Sorry if that doesn't help

[theMime.]

I'll try put a decent post up for you later, but in the meantime I judge it almost entirely on their hairstyle and what type of shoes their wearing. Sorry if that doesn't help

[Lotus]

Types and the level of annoyance they provide correspond almost perfectly.

[BLauritson]

I make an initial hypothesis based on first impressions and, to an extent, VI (to me, VI is just about subtle resemblances to people I've typed previously; so if I've not met someone with that sort of look before, I leave out the VI aspect). I then observe their behaviours in all its forms and test that against my knowledge of that type. I also take my interactions with that person into account (zomg! typing via intertype relations! :evil: :thedevilonearth:
:armageddoniscomingeverybodyruneventhoughthatwould beentirelyuselesssinceyoucan'trunfromanythingthate ncompassestheentireplanet: ). Basically, I do this to a certain extent and, if things seem to fit, assume my initial hypothesis was correct. Otherwise I reconsider. If things continue to seem to fit, then I become more confident in that typing and stick with it. I'm rarely wrong with this method, although that's not to say it doesn't happen. Obviously my success rate has increased with both experience and as my knowledge of Socionics has improved.

[UDP]

I hit them with my type stick, and it reads out their type. What's more to say, mime?

that is exactly what I was going to say.



In reality, Mime, that is a great question.
My method is sort of related to what I heard someone else say:

- Discern quadra values
- Discern temperment

Keep looking for ways to verify these two things. Rationality/irrationality comes into play. Figure out what the most noticeable, strongest characteristics of the person are. A VERY IMPORTANT method for understanding quadra values and temperment is INTERTYPE RELATIONS. Pay very close attention to who this person gets along with most easily, and why. And who they don't like, and why. Furthermore, don't think that because someone hates someone, they are concflictors. That's foolish. Seek to understand why this person hates someone else. What are the reasons? Is it because the person is irrational, and they person they hate is so structured and boring that they are having major irrational/rational tension? Or what else?


PERSONALLY, I recommend doing something that very few people seem to catch on to: once you start finding something else about someone, you go process of elimination on the functions, or traits in general.


So, for example, let's say you find this person. Right away, you get a strong irrational vibe from them, and they seem fairly outgoing. This means nothing yet. But for the time being, hypothesize that the person is EP temperment - that's just what you notice first. (look for physical characteristics, how they move, how they interact with reality and other people - you can see how all of these things relate to different functional values, temperments, etc). So going with that hypothesis, you look at the four EP types - ENTp, ESTp, ESFp, ENFp. You then look at what else is noticeable about the person, and hopefully you have enough experience with socionics in general to figure out how different types feel to you when you interact with them. You, hopefully, may already know someone from the four EP types, maybe you are one yourself. Ideally you are experienced with every socionics type and have lots of experience to draw from. But that's ideally.

Anyhow, so lets say, you keep observing and EP temperment seems to still hold out, and you also are getting a vibe of intuition over sensing, in terms of dominance. This person seems a little bit spacey at times. IF you are an intuitor yourself, they seem a little similar in this way. If you are a sensor yourself, they seem different from you in this way.

So moving on you are thinking EP and Ne dominant. You are always looking for hints on whether or not to verify whether or not these assumptions are true. Hypothetically, we are down to ENFp and ENTp. What is the difference between these two types? Te/Fi and Ti/Fe. One has a dual of ISTp and the other has a dual of ISFp. Now, both ENFp and ENTp value Si>Se. Basically what I've been saying so far is that the types have different quadra values.

By figuring out if the person is "T" or "F", you can make progress too. But realize it is not just T or F, it is Ti or Fi. Consider what this person is strong at, and what they regularly feel comfortable doing. Because it is not just a matter of T or F. This is also determining what polr the person has. ENTps have Fi polr. ENFps have Ti polr. Those are very significant differences.

So what I'm getting at here is, whenever you "pin down" a function in one position, there are consequently other functions that come into play. When you figure out someone's creative function, this directly is related to their polr, and vice versa. Related, as soon as you figure out if someone really values or really dislike/unvalue a function, than that can immediately eliminate halve the types (read 8 types) from consideration. Going back to our above example, as soon as you realize this EP has strong Ne, even realizing Ne and intuition as a major characteristic, then you can take away all the Se valuing types - in theory.

For the sake of our example, lets say you realize the EP seems to be Fi creative, that is, he is an ENFp.


Now what I described here is basically, IMO, a way to use the "tool" of socionics. Yes, there will be grey areas in your understanding and in the appearance of someone's values. You may not be able to tell if they are Ne or Se dominant. You may not be able to tell if the are Te or Ti valuing. But hopefully you can put things together overtime, and keep following your strongest leads until you find something that seems to be keep holding up with reality, (including intertype relationships). The whole process is constantly checking against reality. Hopefully over time you cumulate enough experience in realizing what grey areas there are and ways to get around them.


Basically, just keep churning away ideas, fleshing out what seems to stick and what seems questionable. Those things you are most sure of should have the most significance - if someone gives a strong rational or irrational vibe, go from there, and see how that impacts the rest of the possible type selections for this person. Each type is similar to other types, but also, each type is vastly different. Each type is vastly different because even though there are two types for each leading function, there are NO types with identical grouping blocks, and that puts a vastly different spin on each of the 16 types.


Again, I see typing as more a measurement system, a tool. You have to accept some general principles about what socionics is and is not. But you also have to accept the definiteness of the theory. That is, when you say someone is Fi creative, the do have a Ti polr. That's just how the theory goes. I'm not saying anything about whether that is in the case of reality, but for the sake of using socionics, that is how it is. If you want to use socionics, then just consider typing like using a tool.

This of course is not the way to type people, it is just my way. It is not even my way, it is the best I could do in limited time and with "words" to try to point at what I'm talking about. Find out what way of 'typing' people works best for you, and do it.



PS: I personally also am interested in erotic roles. For me that is a very clear way to see things about people, because that is a raw instinctual matter, and if you look at the interplay between any type and their dual, you can gain a lot of insight into things. This is not very common, apparently, for other people - but it is something I generally make not of. For me, people's erotic roles or erotic nature is fairly indicative or at least a good insight for additional things. If you want to hear my thoughts about that, ask me. But this is enough for now.

[implied]

"vibes"

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Types and the level of annoyance they provide correspond almost perfectly.

This is really a good point. Indeed you are powerful, as the emperor has forseen.

[UDP]

This is really a good point. Indeed you are powerful, as the emperor has forseen.

Yeah... seeing what types of groups the person likes to be around and feels comfortable in is a big one.

[Ezra]

"vibes"

I use this method.

I use evidence when I want to back it up, and I'm good at making the evidence seem more or better than it is. People like niffweed detect my bullshit on the userlist in minutes.

[xyz]

Maybe if everyone wore descriptive shirts...

[Ezra]

Maybe if everyone wore descriptive shirts...

That is legendary. Where did you get that?

[implied]

I use this method.

I use evidence when I want to back it up, and I'm good at making the evidence seem more or better than it is. People like niffweed detect my bullshit on the userlist in minutes.

i'm being a little sarcastic. to some degree i probably do use "vibes" rather actively, or let them lead me in a particular direction. whether or not that direction is right is another story, but you do wind up getting a feel for things eventually and it comes in handy as well as a whole a slew of other methods.

[Kristiina]

Body language and speech patterns. For short, "vibes". If two people have the identical speech patterns ("....pause...argue...silence..agree") then it usually makes me think they're the same type. You can analyze it later though - "first reaction is to disagree but then they need time to agree with it", but I usually don't get that far. Usually I have problems typing people when they match different type patterns or when they don't match any. If someone has the "right" speech pattern and body language, then it's very difficult to convince me they're another type.

Facial expressions help as well because often people don't vocalize their speech pattern reaction. "....pause...argue...silence..agree" might become "...still...frown...still...agree".

[Steve]

A lot of it has to do with the feeling I get when looking at someone, whether they look annoying or pretty cool for example. In terms of getting these initial impressions, it's kind of like knowing you're physically attracted to someone when looking at them (or love at first sight) - the same way a person knows they like someone when looking at them, they can pick up type vibes. Hearing them speak or watching them on a video helps a lot too, because you can see how they're reacting to a particular situation and a particular context. It's like identifying colors - you can't so much define them absolutely, but rather how each color makes you feel.

Obviously after the initial "annoying or cool" impression, I can begin to isolate what about them makes me feel the way I do - the person may remind me of someone I know or heard of and already have a context built around in terms of how I feel about them. (back to the color metaphor) With the color red, I can't say exactly why I like it, but I can say that it seems regal, rich, definite, and sophisticate (deep red) - all adjectives which seem to almost capture the way the color seems to me, but never quite get there - the same way a math function approaches a limit or an asymptote - there's just something about the color that resonates with me. The same applies to how different types resonate with me.

Now I'm not saying that I will automatically find different quadras' types annoying and find all Alphas to be cool. Let's say there happens to be a Ti ENTp that looks annoying to me, I'll probably get the following reaction when looking at him:

"There's something disturbingly familiar about him, but he looks like a dick"

I've by now developed a good enough idea of how my own functions look on the outside, and the things my functions look for in reality, so I can usually identify it in other people, or identify the lack thereof.

Now say I'm looking at a particular ENFj - I can imagine the type of conversations I'd have with the person, and just how the Beta NF vibe would interact with my own. I can also imagine our differences and that usually we'd be able to connect and have fairly meaningful conversations, but the ENFj would usually seem more intense/intense-seeking than I am. I may get the image of the ENFj being like these water rapids whereas I'm kind of like the breeze that generally sweeps through the area.

The more you familiarize yourself with it, these vibes and impressions become automatic and worked into your working schema of the type dynamics - they begin to take on abstract shapes "smoothness, hardness, pointy, flowing, ice-like, severe, mild" etc.

[Steve]

And UDP made a good point here:

Keep looking for ways to verify these two things. Rationality/irrationality comes into play. Figure out what the most noticeable, strongest characteristics of the person are. A VERY IMPORTANT method for understanding quadra values and temperment is INTERTYPE RELATIONS. Pay very close attention to who this person gets along with most easily, and why. And who they don't like, and why. Furthermore, don't think that because someone hates someone, they are concflictors. That's foolish. Seek to understand why this person hates someone else. What are the reasons?

[strrrng]

I use a very rigorous scale. I determine whether the person gets in barfights or not. If they do, then they are beta ST. Then you look at how they maintain their house. Then I observe them to see if they're watching the clock on the wall and making a forecast. And then I look at how they respond to puppies. Finally I look at how shallow they are.

it hasn't failed me yet...

[Ezra]

glamourama, you read the female IEI portrait? That's far more like a picture of a femme fatale than an SEE.

[xyz]

I sure can kill those crackas.

[UDP]

I use this method.

I use evidence when I want to back it up, and I'm good at making the evidence seem more or better than it is. People like niffweed detect my bullshit on the userlist in minutes.

Well I'll be damned, you decided to just come out and say it.

I don't think you're good at all, perhaps because you use this technique so much on "my typing process", or whatever the hell you want to say you do in "determining my type". This is exactly why I made my comment about you not having "authority" in your voice. You TRY to have authority, but anyone with half a mind should be able to see your bullshit. Especially if you, as you did in my case, go out of your way to make someone look bad.

No I'm not really going to hold anything against you, I don't care - lots of people do this sort of thing. But I think its terrible for socionics practice in general, and that's why I get angry, and that is why I get angry when other people are "typed" in this fashion. Because all of the bullshit rationalizations that are proposed are based on an extremely limited amount of information, and are much more based on your personal "vibes" about someone, particularly (apparently) just how much the person like someone.

And what's more, this encourages others to do the same thing, and people accept this as "oh, that's how we do socionics". Well, I disagree. That's all I'll say for now, if anyone desires further articulation on this matter, let me know.

[Creepy-bg]

I sure can kill those crackas.

Aztlan!

[xyz]

I'm afraid I don't understand this diaper fetish.. please, elaborate more

[xyz]

don't lie to me luis!!!

haha alright, I won't lie to you Ruth















(yet)

[dbmmama]

i can see it in their eyes. the eyes are the windows to the soul. they tell all. i'll have to go check out that "eye" thread....

lv
kj

ps. since i don't ever look into my own eyes, i am not "seeing" "me"

[xyz]

you just gave me chills.

Chills? Uh oh, here, 2 bowls of this makes me feel TONS better

[Lotus]

Chills? Uh oh, here, 2 bowls of this makes me feel TONS better

There should be a cringing emoticon.

[UDP]

Really? That sounds pretty complicated.

I just compare everyone to UPD. It's fast. Simple. Relatively painless.

That must be a difficult comparison though. The rest of the population must seem infinitely less grand. But hey, you do what you must.

ah but still, seeing that that he has a "diaper fetishist pedophile" vibe really helps me see why he considers me his conflictor.

Jeez, you really like hammering me here on the forum, don''t you. I suppose it makes sense though, INFps want to be raped by the distant father figure of ESTps so as to feel whole.

[xyz]

I suppose it makes sense though, INFps want to be raped by the distant father figure of ESTps so as to feel whole.

..WHA?!

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Typing people is really going downhill these days.

[UDP]

UDP, you can have the rest.

The rest of what, dear?

Typing people is really going downhill these days.

Yes.

[Ezra]

no ezra, you are clearly a "femme fatale." (this goes for both sexes)
joy is much like a "golden boy." (this goes for both sexes)
logos is an obvious "serial killer." (his logic told him so)
lokivanguard is pretty much like an "assassin." (of the korean cracker-eating variety)
I am almost like a "satanist." (I will cut you)

etc....

I thought you thought I had a "gangster" vibe. Or was it a "terrorist" vibe? Or perhaps even a "hippie" vibe or a "manipulator" vibe. My oh my, I cannot remember.