How valid is type assessment based on a persons behavior (Quadra, temperament, reinin's attributes....)? As oppose to other methods like usage of IME-s, inter type relation analysis, crystal balls?
How reliable is behavioral typing
How valid is type assessment based on a persons behavior (Quadra, temperament, reinin's attributes....)? As oppose to other methods like usage of IME-s, inter type relation analysis, crystal balls?
my socionics typing dice are foolproof!
(mention this post and get a $9.99 discount rate!)
Oh, I will, I will! Hey, and where can I get me some of those, soci ...onik dai... dai..y..yes, es, thingies?
Re: How reliable is behavioral typing
it, of course, is subject to error and bastardization. but its not an inherently invalid method.Originally Posted by snegledmaca
edit: are you saying here that behavior is totally unrelated to use of IM elements and that the two are necessarily segregated?
No. But we can use behavioral analysis and never resort to mentioning the IME-s.
if you don't talk about IM elements or quadra values, then you're probably spewing mostly bullshit, although there may be some exceptions.No. But we can use behavioral analysis and never resort to mentioning the IME-s.
I mean like using quadra values without seeing where they come from. Taking a baked product from earlier theory and using it as a start without referencing the earlier theory.
i dont understand what you mean.
You use only the aspects of the theory that pertain to behavior. That describe behavior. Like quadra descriptions, temperament description, reinin's attributes, gulenko's erotic attitudes and so on. You then make them a starting point ignoring how you came to the divisions. Just observe behavior and see how well they fit these divisions. Basically, you do what MBTI does, just try to determine the scales. Clearer?
I'd hesitate to say one method is "better" or more reliable than the other; one hopes that most of these things coincide in a typing, and I think the best way of going about typing someone is just comparing all of the information and seeing what is most characteristic of the subject or obviously Socionics related. That's what I do, anyway; I think it's a little silly to say that one method is always better than the others. Why not just use all of them?
No, I'm using IME = Informational Metabolism Element.
Because they contradict each other? I want to see which one has more "merit" on the outcome.
The thing is, this description
Is not me. In fact it's my exact opposite. In fact, I'm revolted by it. I find it extremely repulsive. The kinds of people described there are the ones I've been try to avoid my whole life. Now, as I beta, I'm not suppose to have such a reaction to a beta description so I'm wondering... can I just ignore it?Preference for larger groups where participation is "collective" rather than focused on individuals for any length of time, but with likely "domination" by more assertive individuals. Loud exchange of jokes for the benefit of the group, occasionally at one individual's expense. Attempt at drawing others into the group activity: for example, in a situation where there are "group rituals" going on (as in drinking, dancing, etc), good-natured pressure on "outsiders" to also participate in them, with a sort of puzzled dismay if they prefer not to. In more subdued moments, discussion of ideas involving present trends and political implications, with strong views voiced. Personal experiences tend to be discussed from the point of view of their external impact rather than the individual's own personal view of them.
When larger social events are organized by Betas (such as parties, receptions etc), they show an inclination to promote activities that will lead to the guests involved as a single group, such as games and shows; dislike for the "quieter" form of events where guests tend to quietly form smaller groups in more intimate atmospheres, which Betas tend to see as boring.
For Betas the activity or the topic are not as important as the atmosphere. Therefore when a group of betas is together, they tend to end up trying to entertain each other. They exchange fun (and often loud) stories to feed the atmosphere, so that the group energy won't run out. People talk fast and they often add comments to other people's stories if they feel that the pace is slowing down. When someone starts to talk, he takes on the obligation to entertain for the duration of the monologue and, in a friendly group, other people only interrupt to try and help him keep control of the atmosphere.
Talking about personal matters in a group is not something that Betas generally do. It's viewed almost as treachery when something that was told in a one-on-one conversation is retold in front of a group, or when someone criticizes another person's traits in front of the group. Betas believe such things should be told in private and should not be used to embarrass or belittle a friend.
Betas also don't like it when people tell long, slow stories. Betas try to be polite and listen to the story, and they will forgive you if it was boring for them, but if someone does it too often they might not be invited back. Betas restrict slow stories to one-on-one conversations. However, IEIs are more likely to adjust to the slower stories because they are very flexible conversationalists.
Irrelevant. The theoretical background could be a study of sucking a donkey's ass for all I care. I'm just using the results.If you use Quadra and Temperament properly you are using IM elements.
Because saying some is EJ means a lot IM wise.
It means they have eitheror
in their leading function.
For Quadra it is the same, it is because of certain common patterns of information elements. It is difficult to get into someone's thoughts and break them down via IM because it requires a lot of reading behind the lines and not verifiable, which is why a lot of descriptive behavioral observations have been written about these topics. Call it "evidence" of function.
Now where I agree with you is this.
One of things I hear people say or use for typing is supposed to beor something like this. I don't think this is a good way to view socionics, it is why people behave the way they do rather then what they do.
Cultural and enviromental condition will temper behavior, where as personality is the mechanism.
Rather than "ignore" it, I'd put it on hold -- you're not the first person supposedly Beta to take issue with those Beta group descriptions. Perhaps they're badly written; perhaps that's how the interactions look to outsiders but not to the quadra members themselves (just like Gammas may appear "nepotists" to others, which they would not identify with); perhaps some individual Beta members do not fit the description --
If you said, however, that you find the concept of your supposed dual, the SLE, also "extremely repulsive", then that would be something to take several other looks at.
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
No. Don't care. Irrelevant for my point. People can do what they want.The theoretical background is focusing on IM Elements rather then dichotomy. Which is kinda of what you want people to do isn't it?
Again, don't care. I'm just contrasting them.By saying you just want to use the results aren't you going in the opposite direction?
Hmmm, let's say the conclusions of it, do they carry more weight? When do they carry more weight?What you're asking is if behavioral analysis more valid then information metabolism analysis in socionics.
Good enough for me (Hint: the other thread :winkRather than "ignore" it, I'd put it on hold -- you're not the first person supposedly Beta to take issue with those Beta group descriptions. Perhaps they're badly written; perhaps that's how the interactions look to outsiders but not to the quadra members themselves (just like Gammas may appear "nepotists" to others, which they would not identify with); perhaps some individual Beta members do not fit the description --
If that description describes SLE-s perfectly the by all means yes. But I doubt that.If you said, however, that you find the concept of your supposed dual, the SLE, also "extremely repulsive", then that would be something to take several other looks at.
A model of perception.What is "information metabolism" if not a behavioral model?
I've been thinking that some of Augusta's work may have been mischaracterized. I'll be writing more about this.
Yes, but that's not what I was referring to. I was referring to her applications of it."Information metabolism" was Kepinski's model, not Augusta's.
@hmmkr:
People subconsciously correlate proper reward for good behavior to the fulfullment of their hidden agenda. That's the missing link in my view.
I asked my ENTj psychology professor, a behaviorist, what it would mean to his model of behaviorism if he considered that not everyone holds money and wealth in the same esteem he does.
On the other hand, I can imagine this strategy being put forward to terrible ill. I'm personally glad people aren't holding my health over my head as a means of coercing me to do their bidding.
I regularly see people tripping over their HA when they assume everyone is out for A, B, etc. when they make their arguments. Makes them very easy to type, but otherwise it's discouraging, especially when you read it from a so-called "authority".
Still not sure what to make of the "many worlds" hypothesis in quantum mechanics.
Re: How reliable is behavioral typing
Depends on the person, but I'd say valued functions is the only sure fire way to narrow a person's type down to one of a few, and from there intertype relations, temperaments, and maybe reinin's dichotomies (if there are any that are obvious) can be used to narrow it down to a specific type. But again, it depends on the person. Different things stand out more than others in different people.
I share your sentiments, overall. People can have lots of different reasons for the things they do, and it's those reasons that are type related, not the behavior itself.
The problem is that you have to either really trust someone and their ability to analyze themselves, or be very perceptive to actually type people based on their motivations/what's "in their head."I share your sentiments, overall. People can have lots of different reasons for the things they do, and it's those reasons that are type related, not the behavior itself.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
Except that any given behavior could have any number of possible motivations, so unless there is clear external evidence for one over the others, there's really nothing you can do.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
People don't behave the way they do just so it's easier for you to type them.The problem is that you have to either really trust someone and their ability to analyze themselves, or be very perceptive to actually type people based on their motivations/what's "in their head."I share your sentiments, overall. People can have lots of different reasons for the things they do, and it's those reasons that are type related, not the behavior itself.
Regardless of how difficult or easy it is to type people, motivations and the way they think are type attributes. Behavior is merely the result of type attributes combined with non-type related things. Aren't you the one who likes to say that stuff isn't type related when people post threads about the characteristics/behaviors one is most likely to find in specific types?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
