Why don't people

[drd252]

Put their type in their signature?!!

I mean, this is a socionics forum, everyone should therefore have their type in their signature (or at least their most probable type, if their type is disputed). The whole point of this forum is to explore the 16 types, right? Why would someone not have their type in their sig? Following a thread is frustrating when people don't display their type, and I find myself often not even reading posts by people who don't display their type (unless they're one of the few people who's type I know from following a "what's my type?" thread, even then, it's nice to be reminded with every post).

[drd252]

I think you should put "they're unwilling to exert the effort" or something.

I wish people would, it's very helpful.

yeah, I realized that would be a good option, after I posted it; too late now

But that's hardly an excuse, that's like saying "I don't want to tell people my name, because it takes too much effort."

[Khamelion]

Okay, okay...

[Garmonbozia]

It is a secret.

Why don't people read forum descriptions before they post things?

Something tells me that this post belongs in anything goes or better site discussion.

[Logos]

I had my type in my signature for a long time, but then I purposefully removed it.

1) It changes your perception of my posts: If every time I make a comment and you read my type in the signature, this will alter your perception such that my comments may be misjudged or dismissed on the basis of my type.

2) Type qualification: If the qualities of my type are not evident in my posts and in what I say, then having the label in my signature does little good.

3) My goal is to make your life more difficult.

ETA: But you know, what? You're right, and as it just so happens you crossed me at a change of hearts.

[normal]

because they are stupid with one vote?? JAHAHAHAHSAUDHAS

[Jarno]

I'm also annoyed when I don't see a type in their signature.

Then you just don't know what source you are dealing with.

[Ezra]

Many are unsure.

[Joy]

I didn't for a long time because I didn't wish to discuss my type.

[mm]

I never got around to put it in my sig, because it never occurred to me as important.
Because like the colour of the skin it is irrelevant to the content of their character.
I don't see what you can learn from it given people are sometimes mistyped, so a person's stated type is unreliable at best.
Statements in a post are either valid or not independently of the author, so what purpose would knowing his type have besides serving the cause of prejudice and premature acceptance or rejection?

That said, I always happily state my type whenever someone asks.

Btw, is this a Te issue?

[Logos]

I'm also annoyed when I don't see a type in their signature.

Then you just don't know what source you are dealing with.

Is the validity of the source determined by a person's type? Or does truth somehow become any less truthful when it comes from the mouth of others?

[Warlord]

It would ruin my cool sig

[mustachio]

simply because it creates bias. i don't have to tell you my type to be credible. what kind of bullshit is this? you don't have to know a person's type to agree or disagree with them. the content of their posts is all that matters. some members here who are stereotypically supposed to be smart because of their supposed type or whatnot speak alot of drivel. doesn't mean they represent that type because they claim to be. i could pass myself off as a LSE and you'd never even notice.

furthermore, i refuse to be labeled, put in a cog and told you're such and such. i get enough of that irl. i sure don't need some bozzo who lives a thousand miles away to tell me what i am and what i am not.

[Not A Communist Shill]

If people are forced to put their type in their sig, they are likely to resent this, and put any type in their sig as some form of protest - this would create chaos.

[Logos]

simply because it creates bias. i don't have to tell you my type to be credible. what kind of bullshit is this? you don't have to know a person's type to agree or disagree with them. the content of their posts is all that matters. some members here who are stereotypically supposed to be smart because of their supposed type or whatnot speak alot of drivel. doesn't mean they represent that type because they claim to be. i could pass myself off as a LSE and you'd never even notice.

furthermore, i refuse to be labeled, put in a cog and told you're such and such. i get enough of that irl. i sure don't need some bozzo who lives a thousand miles away to tell me what i am and what i am not.

Agree, but if he wants a label for me, then a label he shall have.

[drd252]

simply because it creates bias. i don't have to tell you my type to be credible. what kind of bullshit is this? you don't have to know a person's type to agree or disagree with them. the content of their posts is all that matters. some members here who are stereotypically supposed to be smart because of their supposed type or whatnot speak alot of drivel. doesn't mean they represent that type because they claim to be. i could pass myself off as a LSE and you'd never even notice.

furthermore, i refuse to be labeled, put in a cog and told you're such and such. i get enough of that irl. i sure don't need some bozzo who lives a thousand miles away to tell me what i am and what i am not.

I couldn't disagree with this more. It doesn't create bias, or affect credibility; it helps to better understand the types and the interrelations thereof. For example, say you're an ESFj, I'm not going to disagree with whatever you say simply because you are my conflictor; like you said, content is all that matters. However, content without context doesn't matter.

If you don't value labels, then why the fuck are you involved in a forum that's based upon categorizing individuals into one of 16 types? No one is forcing you to be a type, you are what you are, and there's no shame in that, even if you're an ESFj

[mustachio]

content without context? that's where you're wrong gorilla man. when a man speak, do you check his background to understand where he's coming from? no, because you don't need such trivia. if i go into a debate with somebody, i don't even need to know their name. it's not necessary. all that matters is whether what they say is logical or not. is it enlightening? does it make me change my mind? even when speaking about the ideas surrounding socionics, providing your type isn't going to change whether or not what you say is of any value.

of course, if the subject of a thread requires that one provide a subjective viewpoint then identifying your type can be useful if not indispensable. when that arises, i repeat my type for those who do not know it yet.

my being on this forum doesn't mean i enjoy labels. i am not a type. nobody here is strictly a type. we have a type. there aren't two individuals here who are perfectly the same. we are complex human beings who have more to offer than just 16 functions.

and it's not because we disagree that we are automatically conflictors, you dumb fuck.

[aestrivex]

i don't have my type in my sig because there's no point in putting it there. if i were forced to put it there i would have to remove some other content because i don't want to make my sig too long; i've been on forums where people have massive sigs longer than their posts and its annoying.

[drd252]

content without context? that's where you're wrong gorilla man. when a man speak, do you check his background to understand where he's coming from? no, because you don't need such trivia. if i go into a debate with somebody, i don't even need to know their name. it's not necessary. all that matters is whether what they say is logical or not. is it enlightening? does it make me change my mind? even when speaking about the ideas surrounding socionics, providing your type isn't going to change whether or not what you say is of any value.

I'm not saying that type validates or invalidates anything that is said, I'm saying that not providing type invalidates what is said.

of course, if the subject of a thread requires that one provide a subjective viewpoint then identifying your type can be useful if not indispensable. when that arises, i repeat my type for those who do not know it yet.

All replies are inherently subjective, and within the context of a socionics forum, only those who provide the poster's type are valid; by your own admission, providing type is indispensable.

my being on this forum doesn't mean i enjoy labels. i am not a type. nobody here is strictly a type. we have a type. there aren't two individuals here who are perfectly the same. we are complex human beings who have more to offer than just 16 functions.

and it's not because we disagree that we are automatically conflictors, you dumb fuck.

I didn't say that you had to enjoy labels, only that you should value labels (within the context of socionics), since that's what socionics is about. I'm not saying that everyone of the same type is the same, and I'm certainly not suggesting that we are conflictors just because we disagree; if you can't disseminate a hypothetical example from reality, then you are the dumb fuck, and furthermore, an asshole.

[Garmonbozia]

This recent batch of INTps are shockingly stupid.

[drd252]

This recent batch of INTps are shockingly stupid.

And that's totally nonconstructive

[Garmonbozia]

This recent batch of INTps are shockingly stupid.

And that's totally nonconstructive

Observations of any sort are Always constructive.

True, it may not be constructive here, but it is constructive.

[aestrivex]

This recent batch of INTps are shockingly stupid.

most are not ILIs, i think.

[Animal]

Why don't people put their type in their signature?

Did you ever consider that it's none of your fucking business?

[Khamelion]

This recent batch of INTps are shockingly stupid.

most are not ILIs, i think.

[mustachio]

I'm not saying that type validates or invalidates anything that is said, I'm saying that not providing type invalidates what is said.

shall i grace this with an answer?

let me be diplomatic. i understand your pursuit of a better understanding of socionics. it is admirable. i congratulate you for it. but your use of words bigger than your brain won't hide the vast emptiness of your rhetoric. you can't type people irl that's why you hope to find "real" examples on an internet forum. why didn't you mention this in the first place instead of trying to enforce your brutish fascist half-baked demands on everybody else?

you say only a poster whose type is obvious has any credibility? what does that mean? what is the difference between a user whose type is readily available for your orbits to see and one whose type is a mystery to you? how does their known type make what they say any less intelligent? because your last post just annihilated your hairbrained slant (i was going to call it a hypothesis but that would have been much too much credit to it).

lastly, don't put words in my mouth. i understand that you can look for big words in dictionaries but not comprehend them when they're put together in a sentence but make an effort will you.

[Ms. Kensington]

well i think it's true that one reason people don't put the sig in is flat out because they don't know their type (thank you XoX, the most gracious of sig-writers).

and.. even if an individual is superhuman enough not to incorporate some bias into a label in X number of threads with X number of people... there's no speaking for the X number of others who come in and out of a thread without these powers. You might say there might be as much bias with the sigs as without, but then why bother enstating them if there is no profit? lastly I think people when they first come here are interested in learning about socionics, much less likely that they are coming here to add to a research pool for others; even if they were they would not be very useful until they had typed themselves.. and their self appointed types would not be very useful without first accumulating knowledge of socionics which presumably starts off very low.

[Minde]

i don't have my type in my sig because there's no point in putting it there. if i were forced to put it there i would have to remove some other content because i don't want to make my sig too long; i've been on forums where people have massive sigs longer than their posts and its annoying.

I quite like your sig the way it is, niffweed - one of my favorites.

I don't have my type in my sig for reasons that I cannot adequately put into words at the moment. A sort of non-verbal utterance might possibly convey my sentiments on the matter, but unfortunately this particular media of conversation does not allow that.

Sometime in the future I might decide to put it back.

[normal]

This recent batch of INTps are shockingly stupid.

most are not ILIs, i think.

I agree here. Probably people don't see me as INTp, but I have my reason.

[anndelise]

content without context? that's where you're wrong gorilla man. when a man speak, do you check his background to understand where he's coming from?

part of the context IS where the speaker is coming from
particularly when someone is describing any particular function (or type) and seems to have even a slightly different view of the function (or type) than others (including myself).
It helps to more fully understand him/her and what s/he is trying to say.
Not only is it helpful in socionics based discussions, but also in politics, ethics, religion, philosophy, and even every day matters, particularly in situations where a claim of "IS" is being made and/or an opinion given.

By going off of "logicalness" alone, you miss out on a ton of information.

edited to add: it also helps to know how much value to place on what they are saying.
I'd place a higher value on someone who's discussing a topic they've studied intensely over something someone else says who has never even looked into the topic beyond a dictionary or a poorly written wiki.

For example....when discussing Socionics concepts, the MBTI talk gets less value (for me) than someone who's spent time trying to understand at least a few Russian Socionics articles, but perhaps a bit more value than some newb who's never read anything about personality typings.

[drd252]

content without context? that's where you're wrong gorilla man. when a man speak, do you check his background to understand where he's coming from?

part of the context IS where the speaker is coming from
particularly when someone is describing any particular function (or type) and seems to have even a slightly different view of the function (or type) than others (including myself).
It helps to more fully understand him/her and what s/he is trying to say.
Not only is it helpful in socionics based discussions, but also in politics, ethics, religion, philosophy, and even every day matters, particularly in situations where a claim of "IS" is being made and/or an opinion given.

By going off of "logicalness" alone, you miss out on a ton of information.

edited to add: it also helps to know how much value to place on what they are saying.
I'd place a higher value on someone who's discussing a topic they've studied intensely over something someone else says who has never even looked into the topic beyond a dictionary or a poorly written wiki.

For example....when discussing Socionics concepts, the MBTI talk gets less value (for me) than someone who's spent time trying to understand at least a few Russian Socionics articles, but perhaps a bit more value than some newb who's never read anything about personality typings.

*applause*

[mustachio]

content without context? that's where you're wrong gorilla man. when a man speak, do you check his background to understand where he's coming from?

part of the context IS where the speaker is coming from
particularly when someone is describing any particular function (or type) and seems to have even a slightly different view of the function (or type) than others (including myself).
It helps to more fully understand him/her and what s/he is trying to say.
Not only is it helpful in socionics based discussions, but also in politics, ethics, religion, philosophy, and even every day matters, particularly in situations where a claim of "IS" is being made and/or an opinion given.

By going off of "logicalness" alone, you miss out on a ton of information.

edited to add: it also helps to know how much value to place on what they are saying.
I'd place a higher value on someone who's discussing a topic they've studied intensely over something someone else says who has never even looked into the topic beyond a dictionary or a poorly written wiki.

For example....when discussing Socionics concepts, the MBTI talk gets less value (for me) than someone who's spent time trying to understand at least a few Russian Socionics articles, but perhaps a bit more value than some newb who's never read anything about personality typings.

you're somewhat right, but your post would have been valuable if what he had said made any sort of sense. when he spoke of context he was refering to a user's type. he says a post has no value if the user's type isn't in their sig. now, tell me how you can make sense of this. if you really want to relate a type or certain functions to what a specific user is saying all you have to do is ask what their type is. but the knowledge of this type is never going to make what that person says any more or less valuable. but perhaps you do need to know someone's type in order to understand what is written. if so, pardon my contempt.

also, the content can tell alot about the person in itself. in a socionics debate, a person coming in with MBTT arguments is obviously going to look somewhat foolish. thus, their logic will be flawed unless they can cleverly translate one theory into another. the content of their post is to examine, not your prior knowledge of their inclination towards a certain theory.

logically, a high knowledge of socionics will be more credible than wikipages. again, this tells nothing of context but rather content because the debater fluent in socionics is likely going to quote the articles while the other will sift through questionable reference.

[anndelise]

you're somewhat right, but your post would have been valuable if what he had said made any sort of sense. when he spoke of context he was refering to a user's type. he says a post has no value if the user's type isn't in their sig. now, tell me how you can make sense of this. if you really want to relate a type or certain functions to what a specific user is saying all you have to do is ask what their type is. but the knowledge of this type is never going to make what that person says any more or less valuable. but perhaps you do need to know someone's type in order to understand what is written. if so, pardon my contempt.

One of the common arguments on this forum is over how to view a function. A Te base will describe Te one way, a Te creative will describe it another way, and both will differ how a Te polr will describe it. So when two or more people are arguing over what Te really is, we get three different answers....does this mean that none of the answers have value? no. But perhaps the arguments wouldn't be happening (as much) if somewhere it was acknowledged the differing positions in model A will affect how each of these three people view or define Te. (And perhaps lead to a fuller understanding of the functions and even types.)

BTW, the same applies to when types are being described. An identical will describe it one way, a dual another, a supervisor yet another, and a conflicting or contrary yet another. So when someone is describing a type and someone else is saying no that's not right, yes, I believe that knowing what each of those people's types are helps to clarify what is being said, what is being observed, and how each is observing it.

You're right though. We can always ask. Though not everyone wants to have to hold off the conversation in order to ask what type a poster is before understanding/knowing how to respond back.

On the other hand, not every person wants to list their type, for varying reasons. That is their right.

I never argued for/against either one of those.

[Logos]

Not only is it helpful in socionics based discussions, but also in politics, ethics, religion, philosophy, and even every day matters, particularly in situations where a claim of "IS" is being made and/or an opinion given.

So I have to label myself as a Republican every time I make a political statement? I have to tell you that I am Muslim every time I talk about my religious beliefs? Umm...no.

[anndelise]

Not only is it helpful in socionics based discussions, but also in politics, ethics, religion, philosophy, and even every day matters, particularly in situations where a claim of "IS" is being made and/or an opinion given.

So I have to label myself as a Republican every time I make a political statement? I have to tell you that I am Muslim every time I talk about my religious beliefs? Umm...no.

having difficulties with the concepts of "helpful" vs "mandatory"??

[Creepy-bg]

I've got better things to do with my time than figure out a type for your convienence.

[mustachio]

you're somewhat right, but your post would have been valuable if what he had said made any sort of sense. when he spoke of context he was refering to a user's type. he says a post has no value if the user's type isn't in their sig. now, tell me how you can make sense of this. if you really want to relate a type or certain functions to what a specific user is saying all you have to do is ask what their type is. but the knowledge of this type is never going to make what that person says any more or less valuable. but perhaps you do need to know someone's type in order to understand what is written. if so, pardon my contempt.

One of the common arguments on this forum is over how to view a function. A Te base will describe Te one way, a Te creative will describe it another way, and both will differ how a Te polr will describe it. So when two or more people are arguing over what Te really is, we get three different answers....does this mean that none of the answers have value? no. But perhaps the arguments wouldn't be happening (as much) if somewhere it was acknowledged the differing positions in model A will affect how each of these three people view or define Te. (And perhaps lead to a fuller understanding of the functions and even types.)

BTW, the same applies to when types are being described. An identical will describe it one way, a dual another, a supervisor yet another, and a conflicting or contrary yet another. So when someone is describing a type and someone else is saying no that's not right, yes, I believe that knowing what each of those people's types are helps to clarify what is being said, what is being observed, and how each is observing it.

You're right though. We can always ask. Though not everyone wants to have to hold off the conversation in order to ask what type a poster is before understanding/knowing how to respond back.

On the other hand, not every person wants to list their type, for varying reasons. That is their right.

I never argued for/against either one of those.

okay, i see where you're going with this.

[Logos]

Not only is it helpful in socionics based discussions, but also in politics, ethics, religion, philosophy, and even every day matters, particularly in situations where a claim of "IS" is being made and/or an opinion given.

So I have to label myself as a Republican every time I make a political statement? I have to tell you that I am Muslim every time I talk about my religious beliefs? Umm...no.

having difficulties with the concepts of "helpful" vs "mandatory"??

No more than your reading comprehension skills.