consensus type list

[aestrivex]

so far, there have been three type lists for users on this forum.

one is mine, on the wiki, reflecting my opinion on everybody's type. the other two are self-reported typings.


the latter two, i think, for obvious reasons, are not very useful. mine is perhaps not useful, well, because i could be wrong.


it strikes me that, in constructing a list like this, the best approach would be to create a list on wikisocion open to the public for debate and discussion, a la wikiality. what type appears in the list should be determined by a clear consensus, not by arbitrary standards of one person. this means that if 4 people say lucaswinfield is LII and 3 say SEE, LII should not be the automatic winner; lucaswinfield should be reported as having a disputed type. however, if 6+ people say LII and 2 say SEE, the list would reflect this.


this list would not have to be static; as people change their minds on a person's type, they could easily change their votes.

this is essentially an idea similar to the socionics benchmark list that some users participated in earlier this summer, though not as formal or rigorous.


does this sound like a marketable idea worthwhile of people's time?

[Elro]

Yes.

[discojoe]

Why do we need closure on the issue of people's types?

MIGHT AS WELL SLIT MY FUCKING WRISTS.

[aestrivex]

Why do we need closure on the issue of people's types?

MIGHT AS WELL SLIT MY FUCKING WRISTS.

we dont. and there never will be closure. thats not the point.

[mustachio]

well, my self-typing list isn't about closure. it's nothing more than some sort of lexicon. it can be useful for people who just got here or for some who might want to find parallels between people of the same type. anyway, i think that we can all agree that people find it interesting. as for your list niffweed, well, i think it has less value than mine. you take for granted that your typings are more accurate than the ones on my list even though you haven't met or ever even seen most of the forum users. now, i'm not saying mine or Joy's lists are perfect. but, you suppose that you know people better than they know themselves. your arrogance lets you surmise that you know more about socionics than almost everybody here. now, you have the right to start your own fancy, but don't compare it with more legitimate lists that respects and records other people's choices.

[jessica129]

This is getting really old...4 threads now? No one is ever going to agree with anything that is said so what is the point of all this?

[Elro]

well, my self-typing list isn't about closure. it's nothing more than some sort of lexicon. it can be useful for people who just got here or for some who might want to find parallels between people of the same type. anyway, i think that we can all agree that people find it interesting. as for your list niffweed, well, i think it has less value than mine. you take for granted that your typings are more accurate than the ones on my list even though you haven't met or ever even seen most of the forum users. now, i'm not saying mine or Joy's lists are perfect. but, you suppose that you know people better than they know themselves. your arrogance lets you surmise that you know more about socionics than almost everybody here. now, you have the right to start your own fancy, but don't compare it with more legitimate lists that respects and records other people's choices.

I thought the point of this particular list was to get a consensus? As in, public opinion, which is changeable? As in, it's not representing niffweed's opinion alone, but whoever's? ??? ?? ?

[aestrivex]

well, my self-typing list isn't about closure. it's nothing more than some sort of lexicon. it can be useful for people who just got here or for some who might want to find parallels between people of the same type. anyway, i think that we can all agree that people find it interesting. as for your list niffweed, well, i think it has less value than mine. you take for granted that your typings are more accurate than the ones on my list even though you haven't met or ever even seen most of the forum users.

i don't take it for granted. i believe my list to be more accurate because i think that most of you have no idea what you're talking about. i admit the possibility (indeed, a very high probability) of my list containing numerous errors. i even admit the possibility (though minimal, IMO) that your list is more accurate overall than mine. there's a difference here.

now, i'm not saying mine or Joy's lists are perfect. but, you suppose that you know people better than they know themselves. your arrogance lets you surmise that you know more about socionics than almost everybody here. now, you have the right to start your own fancy, but don't compare it with more legitimate lists that respects and records other people's choices.

your list is different. it is not necessarily better. IMO, it is worse because there are so many people here who are clueless.


i am tired of this petty squabbling. i'm done discussing my list.

[aestrivex]

loki. have you thought about delta NF for your own type?

[marooned]

oh dear.

[aestrivex]

oh dear.

sorry, i couldn't help it.

[PotatoSpirit]

This sounds good, but a lot of work... if you feel like doing it and keeping it up, you're the man.

You could just write

"name" ("self-typing"): "number of people for typing1" "typing1" "number of people for typingX" "typing X"

So, for example

PotatoSpirit (LSI): 5 LSI, 1 SLI, 1 IEE

[cracka]

Why do people care so fucking much about everyone else's type? Type yourself, make your own life better by understanding others, and live in peace... why do we all have to know, or try to know everyone else's type?

[Expat]

"If you ask why, I will ask, why not."

JFK (perhaps).

[PotatoSpirit]

Why do people care so fucking much about everyone else's type? Type yourself, make your own life better by understanding others, and live in peace... why do we all have to know, or try to know everyone else's type?

Can't answer for everybody, but I'm here to learn, and knowing someone's type is necessary for me to be able to build up knowledge of that type, which is necessary to type other people of that type, which is necessary to "understanding others", which, and here we agree, is necessary to make my own life better.

[Creepy-bg]

Why do people care so fucking much about everyone else's type? Type yourself, make your own life better by understanding others, and live in peace... why do we all have to know, or try to know everyone else's type?

Can't answer for everybody, but I'm here to learn, and knowing someone's type is necessary for me to be able to build up knowledge of that type, which is necessary to type other people of that type, which is necessary to "understanding others", which, and here we agree, is necessary to make my own life better.

I strongly disagree with that last bit... socionics is interesting, but far from necessary to make life better IMO. (not that it can't make life better, it's just not necessary is all I'm saying)

[PotatoSpirit]

Why do people care so fucking much about everyone else's type? Type yourself, make your own life better by understanding others, and live in peace... why do we all have to know, or try to know everyone else's type?

Can't answer for everybody, but I'm here to learn, and knowing someone's type is necessary for me to be able to build up knowledge of that type, which is necessary to type other people of that type, which is necessary to "understanding others", which, and here we agree, is necessary to make my own life better.

I strongly disagree with that last bit... socionics is interesting, but far from necessary to make life better IMO. (not that it can't make life better, it's just not necessary is all I'm saying)

Uhm you skipped a passage... "understanding others is necessary for making life better". But you have a point, "necessary" is the wrong word... how about using "can be used to" for every passage instead?

[Creepy-bg]

Why do people care so fucking much about everyone else's type? Type yourself, make your own life better by understanding others, and live in peace... why do we all have to know, or try to know everyone else's type?

Can't answer for everybody, but I'm here to learn, and knowing someone's type is necessary for me to be able to build up knowledge of that type, which is necessary to type other people of that type, which is necessary to "understanding others", which, and here we agree, is necessary to make my own life better.

I strongly disagree with that last bit... socionics is interesting, but far from necessary to make life better IMO. (not that it can't make life better, it's just not necessary is all I'm saying)

Uhm you skipped a passage... "understanding others is necessary for making life better". But you have a point, "necessary" is the wrong word... how about using "can be used to" for every passage instead?

works for me :wink:

[Ezra]

so far, there have been three type lists for users on this forum.

one is mine, on the wiki, reflecting my opinion on everybody's type. the other two are self-reported typings.


the latter two, i think, for obvious reasons, are not very useful. mine is perhaps not useful, well, because i could be wrong.


it strikes me that, in constructing a list like this, the best approach would be to create a list on wikisocion open to the public for debate and discussion, a la wikiality. what type appears in the list should be determined by a clear consensus, not by arbitrary standards of one person. this means that if 4 people say lucaswinfield is LII and 3 say SEE, LII should not be the automatic winner; lucaswinfield should be reported as having a disputed type. however, if 6+ people say LII and 2 say SEE, the list would reflect this.


this list would not have to be static; as people change their minds on a person's type, they could easily change their votes.

this is essentially an idea similar to the socionics benchmark list that some users participated in earlier this summer, though not as formal or rigorous.


does this sound like a marketable idea worthwhile of people's time?

Yes, but a) I want to see your list on wiki and b) I think the typee's vote and the votes of those who know the typee well offline for any given type should count for much more than someone else's online vote. For example, if both Joy and discojoe say she is LIE and then XoX and Phaedrus say "Joy is not LIE - she is SLE" this should not be conflicting. LIE should be down as the most likely type.

[Ezra]

Why do people care so fucking much about everyone else's type? Type yourself, make your own life better by understanding others, and live in peace... why do we all have to know, or try to know everyone else's type?

Oh that's such an LSE thing to say.

Basically, cracka, it provides entertainment. People don't want to know what others are, they want to experience the searching for someone's type. But if this search goes on for too long, like it did with mine, you get people going "no1 gives a shit.." and "SHUT DOWN THIS THREAD ALREADY". It's all about mob entertainment.

Also, if people can confirm their types, it helps others to find theirs through their relationships with the initial typers.

[Slacker]

On one hand, I could see finding some consensus on people's types being useful. On the other hand, there's no guarantee our consensus would be more accurate than people's self-typings, and it's just going to make a bunch of people upset.

Whatever.

[cracka]

Oh that's such an LSE thing to say.

Actually, it was a lot more of a really drunk ESE thing to say. I think I only made 2 posts here before passing out in my computer chair last night, this just happened to be one of those jewels...lmao.

[Blaze]

Oh that's such an LSE thing to say.

Actually, it was a lot more of a really drunk ESE thing to say. I think I only made 2 posts here before passing out in my computer chair last night, this just happened to be one of those jewels...lmao.

LMFAO.

[cracka]

it's important people let others know they are not 100% sure of their type and be honest about it, though ideal, i think such strategy would benefit this forum as at least more people will disclaim that they only think they are of the type, which would make less people who read the forum come to wrong conclusions about their own types, general types and knowledge of socionics.

The way I look at it is, every single person here has their own idea of what other peoples types are and socionics in general. Everyone has a different way of going about it. Some actually go as far as to say that they know for a fact what another persons type is and tell everyone else that they are stupid for thinking someone is something else. To me that's just high school drama that gets rather tiresome after awhile and makes people really not want to even talk about their type anymore. Take Me for instance, Dee and Ezra, you two are probably the only people that actually still think I'm estj, right? You started here a few months ago, just a little while after I'd made the switch from LSE to ESE. This was not a switch I just made because I woke up one day and wanted to, it made much more sense after gathering others opinions, yes, opinions that I thought were correct, not opinions that someone just threw out there who only read a few of my posts. I've learned to put a little more worth into the words of some and very little into the opinions of a few others.
The bad part of telling someone that their type is not 100% accurate is that at some point, everyone here will doubt their types. If everyone here has more than one type, how screwed up does that make typing based on intertype relations? Well, the way you react to xxxxx says you have a lot of (insert 2 letter function here) and that means you're xxxx type. Then 2 seconds later, someone else says, well he's not xxxx so he's xxxx type instead because of how he reacted to... etc.
I come here for entertainment, when first showing up I decided I didn't want to learn socionics because, unless I know it very well, how good would it be for me? I feel as though I'd be biased against or for other people based on what I thought their types are, I'd profile people and judge them based on what I thought they were, then I'd find myself being wrong about a person and wondering why someone who I should have got along with very well ended up being a shitty relationship...etc.
Again, I do see a point in knowing others types, but not if every single thread makes someone a different type or casts doubts into what another thread already said. One persons 100% type of themselves is another persons, well I think you're actually xxxx type instead. Then you get a 5 page, or 100 page thread where everyone gives their own opinions and nobody really knows exactly who's 100% correct. I'm pretty sure I've said the same thing about 3 different ways here so I'm pretty sure I made the point I was trying to make.

[aestrivex]

This sounds good, but a lot of work... if you feel like doing it and keeping it up, you're the man.

You could just write

"name" ("self-typing"): "number of people for typing1" "typing1" "number of people for typingX" "typing X"

So, for example

PotatoSpirit (LSI): 5 LSI, 1 SLI, 1 IEE

no. for example:

==PotatoSpirit==

present consensus: LSI
alternate suggestions: ESE

self typing:
I'm LSI [[potatospirit]]

I think LSI [[jim]]
:I also think LSI [[steve]].
::Wait, maybe he's an Ni type. i think that would be more likely. i don't know however. [[frank]]
:::are you serious? he's a complete LSI [[steve]]
::::i agree, LSI [[dan]]
:::::i say ESE [[eddie]]

==expat==

present consensus: LIE
alternate suggestions: LSE, ILI
self typing: LIE

etc...

its really not all that much work.


this is just a model though; more features could easily be added.

[Logos]

That would definitely be a potentially useful resource of information to have.

[aestrivex]

Yes, but a) I want to see your list on wiki

what do you mean by that? if you want to see the list displaying my opinion on everybody's type, that is here.

b) I think the typee's vote and the votes of those who know the typee well offline for any given type should count for much more than someone else's online vote. For example, if both Joy and discojoe say she is LIE and then XoX and Phaedrus say "Joy is not LIE - she is SLE" this should not be conflicting. LIE should be down as the most likely type.

honestly, imposing rules like this is antithetical to what is being proposed here. this is supposed to be a consensus. if people decide that joy and discojoe have more knowledge of joy and their opinions should have more weight over those of phaedrus and XoX, then they are more likely to agree that joy is LIE, and so the consensus should reflect this.

if, on the other hand, they believe both joy and discojoe to be out of their minds, that's also valid. the bottom line; giving more weight to any one person is not going to work. remember, it's not a majority vote; it's a consensus.

[Ezra]

Take Me for instance, Dee and Ezra, you two are probably the only people that actually still think I'm estj, right?

I didn't think to be honest. I was told that you were by someone else, and had no reason to disbelieve it.

[Ezra]

Right, why is it uncertain that I am SLE?

Also, what is the difference between "uncertain" and "unsure"?

[aestrivex]

Right, why is it uncertain that I am SLE?

Also, what is the difference between "uncertain" and "unsure"?

in short: uncertain means that the type i gave is based on a lack of information; i don't know you well enough and need to observe you more. unsure means that i think i have at least some kind of feel for who the person is but cannot really relate the image of the person that i have in my head to one specific type in model A.

besides this general guideline, the terms are essentially interchangeable. for some people there might be some actual difference. for you there isn't, largely because the problem lies in both areas: i need to observe you more and i have some idea who you are but need to mesh my thoughts into something coherent.



essentially, these are there for my benefit. i would suggest that you consider them interchangeable.

[reyn_til_runa]

i swear, you'd think being "typed" is the new "raped."

[Creepy-bg]

i swear, you'd think being "typed" is the new "raped."

You wanna 'type' me :wink:

[astralsilky]

This sounds good, but a lot of work... if you feel like doing it and keeping it up, you're the man.

You could just write

"name" ("self-typing"): "number of people for typing1" "typing1" "number of people for typingX" "typing X"

So, for example

PotatoSpirit (LSI): 5 LSI, 1 SLI, 1 IEE

no. for example:

==PotatoSpirit==

present consensus: LSI
alternate suggestions: ESE

self typing:
I'm LSI [[potatospirit]]

I think LSI [[jim]]
:I also think LSI [[steve]].
::Wait, maybe he's an Ni type. i think that would be more likely. i don't know however. [[frank]]
:::are you serious? he's a complete LSI [[steve]]
::::i agree, LSI [[dan]]
:::::i say ESE [[eddie]]

==expat==

present consensus: LIE
alternate suggestions: LSE, ILI
self typing: LIE

etc...

its really not all that much work.


this is just a model though; more features could easily be added.

It would also be interesting to study the "mob mentality" of how much previous assertions play into the final result, resulting in inaccuracy - if there was a way to study such a thing.

Guess this is just a concern, in general. I like the idea, but have doubts about how we can ensure quality results without throwing some blinds into the process (if it were even possible) - not to mention, the credentials/experience levels of those contributing input. I like how you plan on id-ing the assertions, at least.

[discojoe]

niffweed can't type me because I'm too bizarre.

[implied]

It would also be interesting to study the "mob mentality" of how much previous assertions play into the final result, resulting in inaccuracy - if there was a way to study such a thing.

Guess this is just a concern, in general. I like the idea, but have doubts about how we can ensure quality results without throwing some blinds into the process (if it were even possible)

perhaps we should not make it public and anonymize it somehow? this way people could express their real opinions. i do believe that this sort of influence exists on this board a lot and sometimes people will just go along with popular opinion just to keep the peace (or get people to shut it, hah, whichever may be the case.)

[astralsilky]

It would also be interesting to study the "mob mentality" of how much previous assertions play into the final result, resulting in inaccuracy - if there was a way to study such a thing.

Guess this is just a concern, in general. I like the idea, but have doubts about how we can ensure quality results without throwing some blinds into the process (if it were even possible)

perhaps we should not make it public and anonymize it somehow? this way people could express their real opinions. i do believe that this sort of influence exists on this board a lot and sometimes people will just go along with popular opinion just to keep the peace (or get people to shut it, hah, whichever may be the case.)

That is an even better idea, yes.

But how do we keep the morons from inventing multiple screennames just to throw in garbage votes and skew the result? How do we limit who the valid contributors are, to some degree??? Knowing that, some may still be silly enough to opt for throwing bad data out there just to stir the pot ... (sorry for thinking so ill of people; I recognize this might NOT happen at all; but one never knows ...) We could set a baseline for % content, or number of posts as of day such&such, or something like that ... just an idea.

[aestrivex]

It would also be interesting to study the "mob mentality" of how much previous assertions play into the final result, resulting in inaccuracy - if there was a way to study such a thing.

Guess this is just a concern, in general. I like the idea, but have doubts about how we can ensure quality results without throwing some blinds into the process (if it were even possible)

perhaps we should not make it public and anonymize it somehow? this way people could express their real opinions. i do believe that this sort of influence exists on this board a lot and sometimes people will just go along with popular opinion just to keep the peace (or get people to shut it, hah, whichever may be the case.)

bad idea. that would throw around ideas without having them tied to anything in particular. it would make discussions on people's types absolutely meaningless.

[astralsilky]

It would also be interesting to study the "mob mentality" of how much previous assertions play into the final result, resulting in inaccuracy - if there was a way to study such a thing.

Guess this is just a concern, in general. I like the idea, but have doubts about how we can ensure quality results without throwing some blinds into the process (if it were even possible)

perhaps we should not make it public and anonymize it somehow? this way people could express their real opinions. i do believe that this sort of influence exists on this board a lot and sometimes people will just go along with popular opinion just to keep the peace (or get people to shut it, hah, whichever may be the case.)

bad idea. that would throw around ideas without having them tied to anything in particular. it would make discussions on people's types absolutely meaningless.

So you want to preserve the discussions, too?

I'm more in favor of seeing tallies of results. We've got threads for discussion already.

[aestrivex]

if you want tallies go create lots of poll threads. to create tallies but remove the discussions would be an absolute waste of time.

[aestrivex]

the page is now operational at http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?t...Consensus_List.

it's not fully functional yet.