Typing by comparison with other people

[Expat]

I don't think anyone here totally avoids, or dismisses, the practice of typing people by comparing them with other people whose type you (presumably) already identified correctly.

However, some seem to make it the central point of their typing, so that if they know enough people of a certain type, they see that as enough to type others, not bothering much anymore with other typing methods.

Others, by contrast, while using "typing by comparison" to get a first guess, perhaps, they prefer to "check" that typing by trying to analyse each person anew, according to functions, dichotomies, etc.

Where do you stand?

[FDG]

I think that typing by comparison is a good way to catch the essence of a type, but a poor way to determine which type a person is in the socionics system. Basically, if we reduce our set of typing-tools to comparison and relationships, we can form a typology without the labels attached. Thus, we might be good at predicting the development of groups and relations, but we might be poor at communicating our findings.

[Expat]

Basically, if we reduce our set of typing-tools to comparison and relationships, we can form a typology without the labels attached. Thus, we might be good at predicting the development of groups and relations, but we might be poor at communicating our findings.

Do you mean that each person might develop their own, personal, typology, that might work on its own, but could be difficult to relate to anyone else's? As if each person had invented their own language?

[FDG]

Do you mean that each person might develop their own, personal, typology, that might work on its own, but could be difficult to relate to anyone else's? As if each person had invented their own language?

Yeah, that's what I think. I think that if somebody observes well, the similarities between people are evident, and also the fact that people tend to group according to quadras. So yes it can totally end that way. Obviously I suppose at least a basic knowledge of socionics too.

[Slacker]

I think it's generally a bad idea to type because people seem similar. I do find that sometimes people remind me of people whose type I'm pretty sure of, and I'm sure that influences me, but I'm careful to not let myself assume two people are the same type because they seem kind of similar to me. For one thing, I can't be sure person A is correctly typed, and beyond that two people can seem similar for a number of reasons, type being only one. And even within Socionics there are reasons other than identical types for two people to seem similar - maybe an ISTp and ISFp might be somewhat similar, maybe two Eps might seem a bit similar, etc. And then the other thing is that two people might seem similar in one circumstance, but that circumstance might be behind their similarity more than type. Like, two people talking about the same thing who have the same basic opinion aren't necessarily the same type. And two young women who get flirty online with an attractive young man might not be the same type.

[aestrivex]

I use it increasingly as I build up a "data base" of each type.

that's precisely it.


i think the only real criticism here is that typing by stupid traits like "he dyed his hair green." obviously, that's bullshit. comparisons based on legitimate socionics traits, i think, hardly constitute a reprehensible typing method.

[marooned]

I try (am trying) to identify the sort of "essence" of IM elements so I can hone in on them... I feel I've made some progress in that area. The area that isn't together quite so well yet is differentiating, say, strong-valued from weak-valued, and that kind of thing (which is why my attention has been turning more to Model A at present). Also there is the sea of what isn't relevant to type (context-dependent and "why" dependent) that has fuzzy boundaries in my mind with the sea of what is related.

I think that comparing people can be helpful in trying to see the scope of what is related to type and what is not, how the same IM element may manifest itself differently in different people depending on a multitude of factors, seeing the essence of the IM element as similar patterns emerge in different people that all match the abstract idea the IM element takes in ones mind. Also, watching the interaction of others yields information.

(Please note, I could still at any time decide that this theory is largely arbitrary, subjective, and illusory... a model that appears to match people, and can be fitted to them, but doesn't necessarily approach any sort of "truth." I am waiting. Even if it starts seeming more and more that way, the other factor that can hold my interest is if it remains interesting nonetheless.)

[machintruc]

I compare other people mainly when they have either the same socionic types or physiological profiles. (i.e. Etypes / Phitypes)

But relative typing, in Ganin's sense, is just a n00by trick, unless you're VERY experienced on typing.

[Logos]

I don't think anyone here totally avoids, or dismisses, the practice of typing people by comparing them with other people whose type you (presumably) already identified correctly.

However, some seem to make it the central point of their typing, so that if they know enough people of a certain type, they see that as enough to type others, not bothering much anymore with other typing methods.

Others, by contrast, while using "typing by comparison" to get a first guess, perhaps, they prefer to "check" that typing by trying to analyse each person anew, according to functions, dichotomies, etc.

Where do you stand?

On its own, typing by comparison is not reliable, so it should be used as a supplementary means of typing and not the sole means. No method of typing should be the sole means, but many methods should be used as a means of supporting the conclusion reached.

[Ezra]

I build up a knowledge base of each type. However, I can separate the legitimate differences (such as the fact that one person is brilliant at getting others to do what they want them do to; who is good at facing problems head on etc. and the other refuses to order others about, so they blatently can't be the same type) from the silly ones (she gets quite angry when someone drinks her tea but he doesn't, so they can't be the same type), enough to be able to discern types from one another.

[Steve]

I do a combination of both - I have a distinct vibe that goes with each type, but also have connected socioncs theory to what I pick up about different types, so I guess I sorta see stuff play out in a person.

I do plenty of comparing too, sure. But I try to compare based on stuff that doesn't seem as fickle. For example two houses could be made by the same builder, but one could be an English Tudor while the other could be a Country French.

[Expat]

There are (at least) two different things.

One is to use your experiences of people you know to understand how functions (and temperaments, etc etc) are manifested in real life. That is unavoidable, and desirable IMO.

Another - for which a clear case hasn't been made yet on this thread, but I'd like to hear one - is when people go, "I am sure fill-in-the-blank and myself (or another fill-in-the-blank) are identicals! If fill-in-the-blank isn't a fill-in-the-blank, then I am certain, neither is fill-in-the-blank of that type!"

Some people have implied a reasoning of this sort; others have been more explicit.

[Expat]

i think the only real criticism here is that typing by stupid traits like "he dyed his hair green." obviously, that's bullshit. comparisons based on legitimate socionics traits, i think, hardly constitute a reprehensible typing method.

Sure, but that's not really "typing by comparison" but using real examples to understand the type, or the functions.

I'm thinking more like, as it happens often here, for instance: some people would say that so-and-so isn't an ILI because they'd see you, niffweed17, as the "template" ILI, so if someone doesn't come across as you (in their view), they'd not type them as ILI.

Like, for instance: "Herzy is SLE. FDG doesn't come across online as Heryz does, therefore I don't think FDG is SLE. And if he is, then Herzy isn't".

That happens here very often. Especially when people use ill-defined and possibly non-type-related as "funny", "dry", "agitated" etc etc.

It's different, however, when people use examples to illustrate functional use, because then we know better what their comparisons are based upon.

[snegledmaca]

I don't type by comparison to other people but more along the lines of determine the validity of my typing. Like, I may hold a person to be of a certain type but when I look at their friends and the like, if they prefer to spend time with their supposed conflictor then I know there is something wrong with my typing of them.


EDIT: I think I misunderstood what this thread is about. I don't type people by comparison as meant by this thread. I can find similarities between people, a link, which tells me there is something that bonds them in some way, actually similar to my statement above, if a person and their conflictor seem too alike then I think there is somethign wrong there. But these impressions are too vague and undetermined to be of any validity in typing. At best they make me (re)consider other possibilities.

[Ezra]

I'm thinking more like, as it happens often here, for instance: some people would say that so-and-so isn't an ILI because they'd see you, niffweed17, as the "template" ILI, so if someone doesn't come across as you (in their view), they'd not type them as ILI.

Like, for instance: "Herzy is SLE. FDG doesn't come across online as Heryz does, therefore I don't think FDG is SLE. And if he is, then Herzy isn't".

Hmmm. Yes, that is weak. I'm beginning to think that I actually don't use that method as much as I think I do.

That happens here very often. Especially when people use ill-defined and possibly non-type-related as "funny", "dry", "agitated" etc etc.

But it is true that SLIs and ILIs are not inclined to churn out raucous sex jokes and that ESEs are not going to be the dryest people you've ever met. Irrational Logical Introverts are, by their very nature, dry people. This has to do with Fe PoLR, IMO. I'd like to see another explanation for their being like this.

[Expat]

But it is true that SLIs and ILIs are not inclined to churn out raucous sex jokes and that ESEs are not going to be the dryest people you've ever met. Irrational Logical Introverts are, by their very nature, dry people. This has to do with Fe PoLR, IMO. I'd like to see another explanation for their being like this.

Yes, but you're already taking the discussion to a level that is more appropriate. It allows us to examine what exactly is going on. I am referring to far more "primitive" argumentations than this.

[Logos]

Another - for which a clear case hasn't been made yet on this thread, but I'd like to hear one - is when people go, "I am sure fill-in-the-blank and myself (or another fill-in-the-blank) are identicals! If fill-in-the-blank isn't a fill-in-the-blank, then I am certain, neither is fill-in-the-blank of that type!"

Some people have implied a reasoning of this sort; others have been more explicit.

Such thinking is rather stupid as the person may not agree, seeing things from your own personal bias, and you in fact may merely be projecting your own values on them.

[BLauritson]

I picked I use it increasingly as I build up a "data base" of each type. I know there are very mixed opinions on the use of VI, but I often use a sort of "VI database" that I've built up in my mind over time, which I tend to use for first impressions before I get to know the person better. The first impressions are quite often correct but not always. I think I also use behaviour comparison to a certain extent, but I can't think of any examples of this. Finally, I'm only able to do this with people I know IRL - I have a very hard time typing people online.

[XoX]

I kind of use it a lot in the sense that I group together people who seem to be of same type. For example I have several cases of "ISTjs" who are almost identical in so many ways. I don't see this as a problem as such. It is not that error prone to type these people as being the same type. The problem is that you can't be sure which type these people are exactly. Perhaps my "ISTjs" are all the same type but not at all ISTjs. I would think you need some other means to verify that the people actually are of the type you think they are.

[MysticSonic]

The main issue with this typing method is the danger in building a typing system which, after shitty approximation after shitty approximation of type based on such observations, one move further and further away from typing correctly. If one is incorrectly convinced that person A is ENTj, and they note the characteristics of person B as similar to ENTj, and thus type them as the same type, then the information that your system possesses will be self-depricating in terms of its value and level of truth that it holds. This perpetuated long enough results in a completely skewed perspective of types in specific, and Socionics in general. There is no doubt in my mind that this very process has occurred in some users on this board.

[Expat]

The main issue with this typing method is the danger in building a typing system which, after shitty approximation after shitty approximation of type based on such observations, one move further and further away from typing correctly. If one is incorrectly convinced that person A is ENTj, and they note the characteristics of person B as similar to ENTj, and thus type them as the same type, then the information that your system possesses will be self-depricating in terms of its value and level of truth that it holds. This perpetuated long enough results in a completely skewed perspective of types in specific, and Socionics in general. There is no doubt in my mind that this very process has occurred in some users on this board.

I agree with every single word.

[force my hand]

Where do you stand?

I trust that those who appear consistent and exhibit fluid use of the theory are probably a good guide for this sort of thing. Of course, it also makes sense to remember there is error in everything.

[mikemex]

How can a method be better than others if there is no way to (dis)prove the conclusion? Is there a way to be certain about a type without going trough "opinions"?

[mm]

The main issue with this typing method is the danger in building a typing system which, after shitty approximation after shitty approximation of type based on such observations, one move further and further away from typing correctly. If one is incorrectly convinced that person A is ENTj, and they note the characteristics of person B as similar to ENTj, and thus type them as the same type, then the information that your system possesses will be self-depricating in terms of its value and level of truth that it holds. This perpetuated long enough results in a completely skewed perspective of types in specific, and Socionics in general. There is no doubt in my mind that this very process has occurred in some users on this board.

But this is only a problem if you consider yourself infallible. There's nothing inherently wrong with building up a type database for comparison as long as you don't fall into the trap of dismissing inconsistencies when you discover them or when someone else points them out to you.

EDIT: personally I only use it as an afterthought.

[mm]

About the poll options:

It's the most practical and reliable method. I prefer it.

To those who picked this option, do you also use other methods? In my opinion, it's always better to combine several different methods and take into account several different opinions, because that tends to cancel out errors.

I avoid using it as it leads to mistakes. How do you know you typed the other persons correctly?

How do you know you understand the functions, quadras, temperaments, etc. correctly?

[misutii]

I find that typing by comparison is useful, especially to those new to socionics, but in the end all of the typings need to relate to reality. It's basically a short-cut, so it's only good if you know where you're going. It's important to consistently discuss these typings with other people using socionics before even thinking about telling Regis, "Yes, this is my final answer" lol

That being said it goes the other way too, functional descriptions on their own mean nothing if they can't be practically applied, typing by comparison is therefore a good testing ground for transferring theory to reality.

I've been using socionics for over two years now and found that at the beginning I focused almost solely on typing by comparison and over time as I became more familiar with the functional definitions I used them to reinforce certain typings and correct other ones.

F types seem more comfortable with typing by comparison, T types with functional definitions. But in the end they must be combined for a deeper understanding. There's certain types that I've become quite astute at picking out, I'd even say I'm almost capable of intuitively typing them within 5 minutes, whether it's in a movie, a book, or real life, the pattern/mannerisms catch my eye. There's other types though that it seems like I'm almost oblivious to- so much so that I don't even think about socionics when I think of them (i.e. I can't seem to type ISFps, ISFjs, ISTps, to save my life and won't be able to until I learn the functional descriptions better). Like even though I know an ISTp in real life, the fact that I haven't yet grasped what an ISTp actually is prevents me from using typing by comparison to type more ISTps.

Also I've found that typing by comparison makes gender and subtype a lot more relevent. There's certain types that I can only recognize in males or females, but not yet both, and there's certain subtypes that I haven't recognized at all. For example I took me a while to realize that ENFj-Ni subtypes and ENFj-Fe subtypes were both actually ENFjs. To avoid confusion I try to avoid typing types that I'm not yet comfortable with, as I eventually have Eureka moments where I'm suddenly able to to mass-type a bunch of previous unknowns I've filed away lol

[Expat]

F types seem more comfortable with typing by comparison, T types with functional definitions.

Interesting that you say that. I think you may be on to something, but not sure if T/F is the best division.

How do you know you understand the functions, quadras, temperaments, etc. correctly?

That's a very good question. All I can say is that if you analyze as many people as possible, trying to type them individually as well as their relationships, and at the same time discussing your conclusions with other socionists, and everything seems to fit, then either you have understood everything reasonably well, or you have created an alternative system.

It is necessary, though, to be pitilessly self-vigilant, never take for granted that you have understood everything perfectly. To me, if someone claims to have already understood socionics after a few months of study (especially online), and therefore needs no further help in terms of typing, etc, that's to me a strong indication that that person hasn't yet got it.

[Ezra]

Why was this thread on the front page? No one's said anything for months.

[XoX]

Why was this thread on the front page? No one's said anything for months.

There is now a phenomenon of very old threads surfacing without a reason. I have seen at least ten already. It is a sign.

Edit: It could be because of an open ended poll which someone answered. I think it is good to make polls have a deadline (at least in the old forum you could do that)

[Elro]

The end is near!

[misutii]

2012 Mayan doomsday prophecy!

[Not A Communist Shill]

2012 Mayan doomsday prophecy!

You shouldn't cause needless panic - the human race may become extinct way before then.

[discourse]

People are just people and when you interact, you are experiencing someone. There's no need for socionics. Someone's psyche, is what we are emphatizing. And socionics just notes that, peoples psyche, on objective and macro level, can be differed into 16 types, pluss explained down that is filled with the information, circeling in certain ways, what can be used to explain, why people have such psychic lives and interactions with the others. And that's it.