Why is it

[Minde]

...that some people fit neatly into a type and others don't?

For example, me and Herzy - according to the vast majority of anyone who has an opinion on socionics, I'm INFj and she's ESTp. We're even held up as representatives of our respective types. Then there're people like Implied, or Ezra, or your second cousin Margaret who defy attempts at pinning them down into one of the 16 set socionics types.

Why is that?

[xyz]

Maybe cuz Socionics is still an imperfect hypothetical categorization of human information processing.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

What Lokiv said. Also I think there's a sort of group mentality which after sometime gets into the minde set (really mindset..but i just noted that pun and wanted to put it down) that certain people are perfect examples of how a type should be.

I don't understand how objectively that can be the case..because if they were the perfect example then everyone of that type would be the same or close (if not how do we determine such a thing..it must be the most common example of a type manifestation to make any sense)

I think in cases like implied and ezra, they could well have had an information and an opinion overload from people with varying degrees of skill on the subject until it gets to the stage were they themselves don't really know what they are either.

This isn't exclusive list of reasons, but thought i'd put these down for now.

[hellothere]

I see the 16 types as being 16 points on a continuous, multidimensional landscape of IM preferences/strengths/temperaments etc. So the people who are easily typed might just be those who happen to be on a point very close to one of the 16 points described in socionics, while people who are not so easily typed may be inbetween two or more of the 16 specified points (ultimately, they are probably closest to one point, but the 'distances' are similar enough that the closest type is not easily distinguished). Also, the 'distance' between points, as well as the points for the 16 types themselves may not be perceived equally by everyone, given different interpretations of IM elements.

[Not A Communist Shill]

I can't decide between Fi and Ti dominance because I am unable to take into consideration the way I was bought up.

Also, when I heard about how 'extroversion' doesn't necessarily equal the usual idea we have of extroversion, I thought maybe there was a possibilty I was a ENTp.

The stereotypical image of anESTp or a INFj etc. probably means that a ESTp-Ti type or a INFj-Ne type doesn't fully relate to those descriptions. And if you read many descriptions of a type, you find they emphasise different things.

I am 'cold and stern' compared to most people, but when I read a INTj description which emphasises those characteristics, it sounds very limited. If I read a INTj profile that is more relaxed, I just begin to feel I am picking and mixing. It is similar with INFj profiles. Saying I am good at understanding people is a very subjective thing to say .

[Logos]

I can't decide between Fi and Ti dominance because I am unable to take into consideration the way I was bought up.

When I heard about how 'extroversion' doesn't necessarily equal the usual idea we have of extroversion, I thought maybe there was a possibilty I was a ENTp.

The stereotypical image of anESTp or a INFj etc. probably means that a ESTp-Ti type or a INFj-Ne type doesn't fully relate to those descriptions. And if you read many descriptions of a type, you find they emphasise different things.

I am 'cold and stern' compared to most people, but when I read a INTj description which emphasises those characteristics, it sounds very limited. If I read a INTj profile that is more relaxed, I just begin to feel I am picking and mixing. It is similar with INFj profiles. Saying I am good at understanding people is a very subjective thing to say .

That makes me want to know the difference in strength between the lead and role functions. Just how strong is strong and how weak is weak?

[UDP]

Lack of information about the person.

People seem wholeheartedly content on typing people based on what forum interaction they see. If we all spent more direct time together things would become more clearly.

But instead, here on the forum, people keep analyzing different parts, different segments of what someone said, and thereby justify entire rationalizations based on this.

In essence, it is bad practice, and poor understanding. Throw in personal like or dislike, open bias, consideration of how stupid/laughable/unimportant someone is, and you've got a world of delusion that you are dealing with.

Minde and Herzy are easy to type because they are fringe members, and their very small contributions fit in nicely common ideas of typical stereotypes


Minde is the devout religious EII, who constantly asks people to reconcile. She is sweet, harmless, and kind.

Herzy is the affable, confident jock type who is able to assert things at will. She's challenging but good natured.


No one sees either of you as assholes, or deceptive, or mean, you are both pleasant. And you neither openly changed your type (or at least in much of a dramatic fashion), so people trust you, in addition to the above statements. So its an easy, easy fit. There is absolutely no controversy sounding either of you.


Compare yourself against me, and you ought to see a major difference.
However....

...that some people fit neatly into a type and others don't?

That is because my interaction with the forum has been much different. I hardly would say that I, or anyone else, does not actually "fit neatly into a type". So what you are commenting on there, imo, is the appearance as via the forum and how some people choose to see things.

Again, in reality, I think people do "fit into a type neatly".
Now I'm not sure if your remarks about you and Herzy were intended for this to be a discussion about the forum, as opposed to real life, but that's where it led me.

Did you mean that in real life people don't fit neatly for you? Or just here, on the forum?

[UDP]

But instead, here on the forum, people keep analyzing different parts, different segments of what someone said, and thereby justify entire rationalizations based on this.

As per Ezra, this isn't necessarily just in regard to "me" - this is what he did with himself. That is why he has several type threads of his own creation, and one of which is the longest in the forum.

[leckysupport]

...that some people fit neatly into a type and others don't?

For example, me and Herzy - according to the vast majority of anyone who has an opinion on socionics, I'm INFj and she's ESTp. We're even held up as representatives of our respective types. Then there're people like Implied, or Ezra, or your second cousin Margaret who defy attempts at pinning them down into one of the 16 set socionics types.

Why is that?

Lack of experience and maybe understanding of types and the different ways elements manifest themselves?

[redbaron]

I see the 16 types as being 16 points on a continuous, multidimensional landscape of IM preferences/strengths/temperaments etc. So the people who are easily typed might just be those who happen to be on a point very close to one of the 16 points described in socionics, while people who are not so easily typed may be inbetween two or more of the 16 specified points (ultimately, they are probably closest to one point, but the 'distances' are similar enough that the closest type is not easily distinguished). Also, the 'distance' between points, as well as the points for the 16 types themselves may not be perceived equally by everyone, given different interpretations of IM elements.

I agree with this.

[JRiddy]

Even if the types themselves are in fact discrete, there's a myriad of ways in which the IM elements make themselves known. In that sense, sociotipy is most certainly continuous, and people will doubtlessly disagree on whether some particular thing is a learned behavior or innate action. Ultimately any categorization will fall short, because there are 6 Billion "types" of people on this planet. People can explain this in terms of subtypes of the phi-model or Enneagram or what have you, but there is still no good explanation of how information metabolism leads to observable traits, so we are stuck in a degree of ambiguity.

In particular, I, among others, have noticed that ILEs seem relatively easy to type, which may be due to the prevalence of ILEs and LIIs among the more well noted socionists. I personally find ILEs, SLEs, SEIs, and IEIs relatively easy to identify, so there may be a bias that's based on the type of the typer. In any case, with further inquiry and testing, it is possible that typing could be more refined. I think this forum can help contribute to that goal.

[PotatoSpirit]

We see behaviors, but sometimes the behaviors we have learned to associate with certain types can appear on other types too.
Also people might try to focus on weaker or unvalued functions for whatever reason, and it's not easy to see past the facade. Especially over the internet, where people have time to think how to write things.

I don't know why, but I'm not a fan of the "continuum" view of types. I think the continuum is only apparent.

[Sirena]

I see the 16 types as being 16 points on a continuous, multidimensional landscape of IM preferences/strengths/temperaments etc. So the people who are easily typed might just be those who happen to be on a point very close to one of the 16 points described in socionics, while people who are not so easily typed may be inbetween two or more of the 16 specified points (ultimately, they are probably closest to one point, but the 'distances' are similar enough that the closest type is not easily distinguished). Also, the 'distance' between points, as well as the points for the 16 types themselves may not be perceived equally by everyone, given different interpretations of IM elements.

I second that!

[JRiddy]

We see behaviors, but sometimes the behaviors we have learned to associate with certain types can appear on other types too.
Also people might try to focus on weaker or unvalued functions for whatever reason, and it's not easy to see past the facade. Especially over the internet, where people have time to think how to write things.

I don't know why, but I'm not a fan of the "continuum" view of types. I think the continuum is only apparent.

The continuum view of sociotipy is sorta unappealing to me as well, primarily because it's a weak theory. I don't mean weak in that it can't be defended--on the contrary, it's probably easier to defend than a more discrete view--but because it doesn't really say much. Most people generally accept that people vary in multiple dimensions from one another. It also is not really that testable, and testability should be an important goal for the more scientifically-oriented in the socionics community.

[Blaze]

sometimes the younger a person is the harder they are to type on a forum. this isn't because their type isn't in reality well established; it's because the person themselves has only 15-20 years of development experience on which to base their typing of themselves. sometimes it takes more time to correctly identify yourself. so sometimes at the forum anyway, when the person isn't self identifying a type consistently, it becomes harder then in a forum setting to type them.

i was only able to self identify as an entp when in my 30's....prior to that, i would have said enfp. but i'm sure if someone well versed enough i socionics had actually met me when i was younger, they probably would have been able to type me as entp at that time.

[Ezra]

Why is that?

I think the best way to explain this is basically because both Herzy and yourself have come to forum, made your own minds up about your types, and have shown no contradictory behaviours in respect to your respective types. (Basically, what I said to Logos about why no one has doubted LII for him.) Then you have individuals like me, who come to forum with no idea about my type, demanding answers and attacking people (spurred on by my defending myself against multiple insults spurred on by my behaviour which apparently wasn't conducive to the atmosphere I found myself in). Then you have people like UDP, who show contradictory behaviours. I can bet anyone would stick with LII if he had done, and no one would've caused a fuss or attacked him, or lost respect for him in any way.

The bottom line is: you simply cannot have a unanimous vote on people like UDP and me. You will never achieve a unanimous vote on people like UDP and me.

That is why he has several type threads of his own creation, and one of which is the longest in the forum.

AWESOME.

sometimes the younger a person is the harder they are to type on a forum. this isn't because their type isn't in reality well established; it's because the person themselves has only 15-20 years of development experience on which to base their typing of themselves. sometimes it takes more time to correctly identify yourself. so sometimes at the forum anyway, when the person isn't self identifying a type consistently, it becomes harder then in a forum setting to type them.

i was only able to self identify as an entp when in my 30's....prior to that, i would have said enfp. but i'm sure if someone well versed enough i socionics had actually met me when i was younger, they probably would have been able to type me as entp at that time.

Very good point.

[UDP]

Then you have people like UDP, who show contradictory behaviours. I can bet anyone would stick with LII if he had done, and no one would've caused a fuss or attacked him, or lost respect for him in any way.

People like Ezra, yeah?

As for what people said about my type, I've been called every quadra and temperment, mostly by people who judge me vocally based off of various assertions - You and Gilly particularly have been most vocal. Gilly said I was INFp for some time. People wanted me to be LSI. People said ESI. People said ENTp. People said EII. People said ENTj. People said ISTp.


If you've lost respect for me because of my interaction on the forum, then so be it. You don't know me, and you say I'm self delusional. You can't even keep your own stories straight.

Then you have people like UDP, who show contradictory behaviours. I can bet anyone would stick with LII if he had done, and no one would've caused a fuss or attacked him, or lost respect for him in any way.

Personally, I'm beginning to accept it, despite the barrier of opposition he received last year as he changed from LII to LSE. Thus far, despite his highly questionable methods of reasoning, I've seen nothing that plays contrary to LSE.

(highly questionable methods of reasoning - again, sounding like you are some expert and have actual knowledge over something)

Why on earth should anyone respect you or your opinion? You are quite contradictory. Yet you are loud and verbose in your expression, thereby you have authority?

If there is anyone who is a poser on this forum, it is you, Ezra.

[Ezra]

People like Ezra, yeah?

As for what people said about my type, I've been called every quadra and temperment, mostly by people who judge me vocally based off of various assertions - You and Gilly particularly have been most vocal. Gilly said I was INFp for some time. People wanted me to be LSI. People said ESI. People said ENTp. People said EII. People said ENTj. People said ISTp.


If you've lost respect for me because of my interaction on the forum, then so be it. You don't know me, and you say I'm self delusional. You can't even keep your own stories straight.



(highly questionable methods of reasoning - again, sounding like you are some expert and have actual knowledge over something)

Why on earth should anyone respect you or your opinion? You are quite contradictory. Yet you are loud and verbose in your expression, thereby you have authority?

If there is anyone who is a poser on this forum, it is you, Ezra.

Do you know what I find funny? People see authority in how I speak, and I don't even try to be an authority. That is something worth having. Even if they don't see my facts or knowledge as correct, or myself as an authority, the mere fact that people actually see the authority in the way I speak is fantastic. I really admire that.

[Not A Communist Shill]

Do you know what I find funny? People see authority in how I speak, and I don't even try to be an authority. That is something worth having. Even if they don't see my facts or knowledge as correct, or myself as an authority, the mere fact that people actually see the authority in the way I speak is fantastic. I really admire that.

I am puzzled by this too...I think you are quite fair in what you say, even when I don't agree with you ! You often make points where I wouldn't even dare because I might get some flack, and things would inevitably turn to circular reasoning and arguments like 'You can't type me, you don't even know me' etc., but as I say, you are generally fair in what you say.

[Kristiina]

We see behaviors, but sometimes the behaviors we have learned to associate with certain types can appear on other types too.
Also people might try to focus on weaker or unvalued functions for whatever reason, and it's not easy to see past the facade. Especially over the internet, where people have time to think how to write things.

I don't know why, but I'm not a fan of the "continuum" view of types. I think the continuum is only apparent.

I like this. Kinda reduces the socionix-doubting for me.

One more thing - there are so many behaviors that can be associated with each type and we often don't see or don't notice all the behaviors. We tend to ignore the ones we don't understand. If we had enough time to observe enough people, we'd eventually start seeing more behavioral traits. We wouln't get confused because of traits that we can't explain.

[Exodus]

Lack of experience and maybe understanding of types and the different ways elements manifest themselves?

Yes. You can't think about it like "some people fit better into a type, and some don't". For yourself, it should be entirely natural to know that you're a certain type, if you understand what it really means. I'm perhaps not the most "typical" LII in terms of visible behavior, but the type describes my general outlook perfectly, because that's what type is.

[UDP]

Do you know what I find funny? People see authority in how I speak, and I don't even try to be an authority. That is something worth having. Even if they don't see my facts or knowledge as correct, or myself as an authority, the mere fact that people actually see the authority in the way I speak is fantastic. I really admire that.

I don't see authority in how you speak, that's just it. (I'll leave the rest out)

[Minde]

Great points, everybody. I like the discussion. Good stuff.

Minde is the devout religious EII, who constantly asks people to reconcile. She is sweet, harmless, and kind.

Is that how people see me?

Again, in reality, I think people do "fit into a type neatly".
Now I'm not sure if your remarks about you and Herzy were intended for this to be a discussion about the forum, as opposed to real life, but that's where it led me.

Did you mean that in real life people don't fit neatly for you? Or just here, on the forum?

All of it.

Ultimately any categorization will fall short, because there are 6 Billion "types" of people on this planet. People can explain this in terms of subtypes of the phi-model or Enneagram or what have you, but there is still no good explanation of how information metabolism leads to observable traits, so we are stuck in a degree of ambiguity.

Yeah.

I think the best way to explain this is basically because both Herzy and yourself have come to forum, made your own minds up about your types, and have shown no contradictory behaviours in respect to your respective types. (Basically, what I said to Logos about why no one has doubted LII for him.) Then you have individuals like me, who come to forum with no idea about my type, demanding answers and attacking people (spurred on by my defending myself against multiple insults spurred on by my behaviour which apparently wasn't conducive to the atmosphere I found myself in). Then you have people like UDP, who show contradictory behaviours. I can bet anyone would stick with LII if he had done, and no one would've caused a fuss or attacked him, or lost respect for him in any way.

The changing-types-therefore-unreliable theory doesn't hold much water, I think. Diana, for example, changed from INFj to ISFj. And, yet, she's another example of someone who nicely fits into a type. So, no, I don't think so to that theory.

The bottom line is: you simply cannot have a unanimous vote on people like UDP and me. You will never achieve a unanimous vote on people like UDP and me.

"never" <-- that's the type of thing that I find amusing in you

In one sense, you are mostly correct. If you were to ask every single person in the whole world what they thought, it is indeed highly unlikely to the point of impossibility that a unanimous consensus would be reached. However, dropping down from billions to, say, 20, a consensus is much more likely, relatively speaking.

I think, though, that you must mean you think it impossible even with a small number, like 20, for there to be a unanimous opinion. In that case, you must also take into consideration who exactly is giving their opinion. People who know nothing of socionics? People who know something of it (like most of us)? Or experts? People who share the same foundational understanding? People who interpret socionics differently? People who know you well? Or people who only know you on certain levels (like the vast majority of us here)?

There are so many variables in this situation that I would not recommend saying "never" or "always." It's way too easy to be wrong about it.

[cracka]

Is that how people see me?

That's fairly accurate as how I view you. If I had to put it in one line to describe ya.

The changing-types-therefore-unreliable theory doesn't hold much water, I think. Diana, for example, changed from INFj to ISFj. And, yet, she's another example of someone who nicely fits into a type. So, no, I don't think so to that theory.

true, when I changed my type from ESTJ to ESFJ, there were a few who wouldn't believe it, and maybe still don't... but now that it's been awhile, nobody really disagrees with my own typing anymore, unless they are one of those few that have me stuck on ESTJ still.

[Joy]

...that some people fit neatly into a type and others don't?

For example, me and Herzy - according to the vast majority of anyone who has an opinion on socionics, I'm INFj and she's ESTp. We're even held up as representatives of our respective types. Then there're people like Implied, or Ezra, or your second cousin Margaret who defy attempts at pinning them down into one of the 16 set socionics types.

Why is that?

Some people use super ego and super id functions more than others. It could have to do with what your environment rewards you for (and it could have to do with personality disorders/brain problems in some cases).

[Ezra]

I don't see authority in how you speak, that's just it. (I'll leave the rest out)

Then how the fuck does the word "authority" get into that brain of yours?

Is that how people see me?

UDP's description of you is classic. That made me LOL.

The changing-types-therefore-unreliable theory doesn't hold much water, I think. Diana, for example, changed from INFj to ISFj. And, yet, she's another example of someone who nicely fits into a type. So, no, I don't think so to that theory.

I said nothing about his type change. Specifically. I was saying that there are contradictory behaviours for LSE.

"never" <-- that's the type of thing that I find amusing in you

role.

There are so many variables in this situation that I would not recommend saying "never" or "always." It's way too easy to be wrong about it.

dual seeking.

true, when I changed my type from ESTJ to ESFJ, there were a few who wouldn't believe it, and maybe still don't... but now that it's been awhile, nobody really disagrees with my own typing anymore, unless they are one of those few that have me stuck on ESTJ still.

But if people looked at the facts, there would be no issue. It is fairly clear that you are ESE.

[hellothere]

dual seeking.

or maybe just strong and valued Ne?

[Ezra]

or maybe just strong and valued Ne?

Perhaps, perhaps...

[Minde]

That's fairly accurate as how I view you. If I had to put it in one line to describe ya.

UDP's description of you is classic. That made me LOL.

Seriously?

That's... interesting...

I said nothing about his type change. Specifically. I was saying that there are contradictory behaviours for LSE.

Oh, I misunderstood you. Okay, then.

"Contradictory behaviors" is basically what this thread is all about. What's contradictory? And why?

role.

Probably.

dual seeking.

Um...

or maybe just strong and valued Ne?

That's more what I was thinking.

But if people looked at the facts, there would be no issue. It is fairly clear that you are ESE.

Yeah, Cracka's another one that fits fairly nicely into a type.

Perhaps, perhaps...

Is this elasticity and open-endedness I'm sensing?

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Exodus]

Anyway, I think part of what makes a person easier or harder to type is just how well they know themself, and how much they allow themselves to actually just be who they are.

Really? IME in person people don't have much of a choice as to whether they let their type show; online is a different story, however.

[Elro]

Really? IME in person people don't have much of a choice as to whether they let their type show; online is a different story, however.

I think as far as online goes, one-on-one communication is best, especially IM.

[UDP]

I agree with the last two posts

[mikemex]

So much wisdom in this thread. I'm regaining my faith in the people.

[Exodus]

I think as far as online goes, one-on-one communication is best, especially IM.

Yeah, forum posting is probably the least intimate form of online communication.

[Ezra]

So much wisdom in this thread. I'm regaining my faith in the people.

Oh omniscient one, tell us what to do next. We are lost without you.

[machintruc]

...that some people fit neatly into a type and others don't?

Why is that?

Simply because some sociotypes don't really fit common descriptions.

For this reason, Kelly Osbourne has been mistyped SLE, Sarkozy has been mistyped LSE, etc.

[Ezra]

For this reason, Kelly Osbourne has been mistyped SLE, Sarkozy has been mistyped LSE, etc.

By which misinformed, MBTI-caked fuckwit?

[machintruc]

By which misinformed, MBTI-caked fuckwit?

http://photo.psychotype.ru/3113/

Kelly is on the same site.

[reyn_til_runa]

think of dogs. choose a specific breed of dog, such as a labrador retriever. there are certain general requirements for being a retriever. then, there are certain requirements for being a perfect example of a retriever, such as those demonstrated in dog shows. then there are the ways in which retrievers function as retrievers, having to do with what work they perform in the context of the rest of the dog world, and in the greater context of the animal kingdom and, furthermore, the universe at large. some retrievers are old and may not epitomize the temperamental characteristics assigned to retrievers, some are poorly trained and so are impacted to appear different from a well trained retriever. some are born from the mother's first litter, so may be smaller than average. then there are runts and alphas to consider -- the dynamic within a particular family of retrievers. then there are retrievers who've experienced trauma, neglect, or abuse, then there are the ones who've simply never learned to retrieve....then, most obviously, there are various colors of retrievers.

in short, humans are like dogs. we are all subject to varying degrees of experience, to training, to age, to illness, to quirks of nature, to genetic predisposition, and even to a sort of pack mentality at times.