I don't think it's difficult. Brilliand had no idea what my type was, but I typed myself as soon as he explained socionics to me. When I learned about enneagrams and subtypes, I easily typed myself for those as well. If you know who you are, it's easy to know what you are.
I don't agree with that. These personality systems are really just ideals/models that resemble reality in some way. Reality usually isn't classified easily, especially something as complex as personality. However, in general, the better the personality system, the easier it is to identify your type.Originally Posted by Director Abbie
Jason
The descriptions may be idealistic, but that is mostly because their authors try to cram as much information about the type as possible into them. With that, there are very few individuals who match the descriptions word-for-word. However, what is important is clearing all the hubris and getting down to the essense of a type. Then, there are certain distinctions that can be made between specific types. Obviously socionics does not dictate all of personality, but a fair deal of your personality is subject to it.
Also, it is hard to type yourself because a lot of people take a bird's eye view approach (which leads to several possible typings, but they pick only the one it best resembles) or the image they have of themselves does not correspond to how they actually use their functions. Additionally, irrationals do not have a stable feel for their functions, extraverts are not as likely to focus on their inner state, and people with strong Ne vacillate constantly.
Finally, "the better the personality system, the easier it is to identify your type"??? Since you claim that personality is complex and not rigid (as would make it easy for classifying), would this not suggest that a system by which it is easier to type yourself has a higher chance of being flawed?
Why would it necessarily suggest that? Your argument is:
P1: Personality is complex.
P2: Therefore, personality is not easy to classify.
C: Therefore, a system that makes personality easy to classify is likely flawed.
I don't see the connection between the second premise and the conclusion. You're going to have to give more explanation.
This is what I was trying to say:
P1: Personality is complex.
P2: Therefore, most personality systems are ideals and only roughly approximate personality.
P3: Some personality systems approximate personality better than others.
P4: These personality systems will be more accurate.
C: Therefore, because they are more accurate, the personality systems that approximate personality better will make your personality type easier to identify.
Jason
Last edited by jason_m; 12-07-2008 at 07:11 AM.
Big bad polr hit simulation. I'm not impressed.
4w3-5w6-8w7
lmfao
4w3-5w6-8w7
The point is not that it looks impressive. The point is that it makes the structure of the argument easier to identify, and so we can figure out what's going on more easily.
Jason
You have to understand, she's an elite gamma—one of the top 10% of the world. They don't need any sense of logical correlation; they're Te is the beacon of all objective trends in the world and her Fi sees the essence of people, so she has it all covered. And her Ni sees the essence of all phenomena, with Se being the radar of pure reality, so there is no possible way that you can surmount her vast superiority to your mode of intellectual reasoning—as I have just demonstrated through this thorough discourse.
4w3-5w6-8w7
she really doesn't strike me as gamma, she never has
Agree with crazedrat here.
I do see that my argument does not necessarily logically flow together, but I also think it has a higher chance of happening. If personality is fluid, chaotic, and not always accurately predictable, a personality system that incorporates personality better than others would likely overextend some areas. They will inherently be more inaccurate as such a system will have to force reality to fit to it at some instances. The most accurate personality systems are not those that approximate all of personality, but those that do a good job approximating one piece of the personality. That is why many prefer to use the enneagram in tandem with socionics: they believe these two systems each address different aspects of personality.
Likewise, it is not always easier to type yourself with an accurate system. Sometimes the aspect focused on by the system will not be obvious or easily discernable in real life, leading people to focus on the wrong things or blow infrequent or rare occurences in their life out of proportion, thinking that it is all governed by the personality system they are using.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote