Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: typing method

  1. #1
    Kristiina's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Estonia, Tartu
    Posts
    4,021
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default typing method

    I have one question. Just don't kill me over it.

    Socionics people jump every time someone even mentions MBTI. Yet, there is a remarkable similarity between the two. The type can't always be simply converted from one to another, but very often it can. Let's leave the j/p issue out of the question right now. People don't even know themselves which one they are, so it would be arrogant to think that I would be able to type this letter correctly when typing my friends.

    I could call this "letter by letter" method, because I don't know any official name to it. This could look like that: ...He is definitely not extroverted. He's very reserved and kinda shy. That means "I". He seems to always know what's going on in his surroundings. He's quick to react, very adaptable and practical. I would say "S". He's very touchy-feely, especially for a guy. Also he's very considerate of the feelings of others and passionate about many issues. Sometimes just won't listen to reason and logic. All that together makes him an "F".... If he is clearly either j or p, then the type can be double-checked by reading the description. If not, then both descriptions (ISFp and ISFj) must be evaluated to determine the type.

    Is it really so wrong to type people with the "letter by letter" method? The alternative method is the socionics method -> determine the type by the functions they use and check with the descriptions.
    EIE, ENFj, intuitive subtype.
    E3 (probably 3w4)

    Cool ILI hubbys are better than LSIs any time!

    Old blog: http://firsttimeinusa.blogspot.com/
    New blog: http://having-a-kid.blogspot.com/

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    354
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The letter by letter method is exactly what MBTI is.

  3. #3
    Kristiina's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Estonia, Tartu
    Posts
    4,021
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Yeah, but what's wrong with this method?
    EIE, ENFj, intuitive subtype.
    E3 (probably 3w4)

    Cool ILI hubbys are better than LSIs any time!

    Old blog: http://firsttimeinusa.blogspot.com/
    New blog: http://having-a-kid.blogspot.com/

  4. #4
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The main problem I see is defining whether someone is Ixxx or Exxx from a perception of their personality. That is very often not straightforward.

    I don't think this method will make you type (say) an INTp as ESFj, but it will lead to mistypings.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  5. #5
    Kristiina's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Estonia, Tartu
    Posts
    4,021
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    In typing I/E, I take into consideration the saying/quote that in socionics, introverts first think then act and extroverts first act and then think. So many impulsive people will be typed as extroverts. I do know that perceiving people are also impulsive, so j/p decision depends on the planning - how often does that person plan actions long before getting there. I do know that some extroverts are shy and some introverts are rather out-going.

    So to determine the difference between E/I and j/p, I use some logic, but mostly my gut feeling. With many people I don't get a feeling which one they could be so I won't assume that they are either. One of my rather close friends is XXTX.
    EIE, ENFj, intuitive subtype.
    E3 (probably 3w4)

    Cool ILI hubbys are better than LSIs any time!

    Old blog: http://firsttimeinusa.blogspot.com/
    New blog: http://having-a-kid.blogspot.com/

  6. #6
    schrödinger's cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    1,186
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I use the letter-by-letter method too. It's quick and reasonably accurate.

    Of course "introversion", "extraversion", "thinking", "feeling" etc. as such don't really exist. Isolating those things and thinking about them separately is artificial. But then, so is isolating the eight functions from each other and saying that there exists such a thing as "Se", "Si", "Ne", "Ni" etc. It's more complex than simply talking about "S" and "N" and "E"/"I", but it's still a simplification.

    And why not? Our psyches could be compared to a landscape: every square mile of it is unique and complicated, but you can still recognize patterns and shapes. You can give those shapes certain names: you can call one of them "mountain", the other "valley", the third "sea". You can use symbols. You can talk about the 130 different types of mountain, or you can talk about what all mountains have in common. Typologies are like maps: they're over-simplifications because they are meant to be simple. They represent phenomena that share some basic characteristics, and because of this they help us find our way around.

    Socionics might be the more complex map. But you can also find your way around with a very simple map.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    42
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I use that method too. I don't see a problem with it. i can also recognise some functions okay - myers-briggs functions anyway, I'm more familiar with those - extraverted intuition and extraverted sensing are usually quite easy to recognise. I basically use a combination of these methods, and then refer back to whatever descriptions I can find. Still haven't managed to type my (new) boss yet though. He's an xxTx (probably J).

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    437
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    i think that in many cases it works almost as well. it's just that the thing is, with letter-by-letter, you're working on the result of the personality/function process, whereas as i understand it socionics is about going below the effect and directly assessing the cause.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •