Why do people not like their types questioned?

[Minde]

Does it have to do with you feeling that your intelligence or ability to understand is lacking or under suspicion? Does it have to do with being invested in a type? Does it have to do with how the questioner questions, as in phrasing and tone? Does it have to do with... what?

Why is it like an attack to some? Why does it bother you?

I'm curious, because occasionally the strength or vehemence of some reactions surprises and baffles me. I would really like to know, particularly from those who find it offensive or bothersome, what it is exactly about having your self-typing questioned or disagreed with that you dislike?


And I would prefer personal examples and explanations above speculation about others' motivations or reasons, please.

[Gilly]

Perhaps it seems like someone suggesting that they understand you better than you understand yourself.

Or, for some people, like me, who are unsure of/concerned with how they appear to other people, it can mean that their self-image and what other people actually see in them are incongruous.

[Minde]

Or, for some people, like me, who are unsure of/concerned with how they appear to other people, it can mean that their self-image and what other people actually see in them are incongruous.

Yes, thank you. That's exactly the type of thing I'm wanting to know. (I'm needing new perspectives because at the moment mine is limiting me in my understanding.)

[Gilly]

omg, your perspective is limited? Are you SURE you're not ESI, Minde?

[Minde]

Nah, just human.

[Gilly]

If you say so...

*plots to overthrow your self-image*

[Errant]

So far it's been my experience that self-typing exists as a method of defining yourself and the relationships you share with people. A friend of mine strongly resisted any idea that she was one type compared to another similar one, simply because her current paramour was apparently the dual of the first type. Later typing of the guy revealed that he was most likely the dual of the SECOND possibility, which left her feeling a lot more comfortable in believing she was that type.

My own personal experience with it's just left me a bit confused so far. I feel most like an INFj in my outlook on life and behaviour, but according to most of the forum I'm some form of beta. So far the only saving grace is that none of them can agree as to what type.

[krieger]

I am very cautious about doubting people's self-typings. The amount of information, knowledge and understanding that any person has about him/herself is impossible to approach from an outsider's position. For this reason, I consider the self-typing to be the most reliable kind of information to be found in the world of socionics.

So yes, to doubt a person's type is like saying "I know more about you than you have been able to learn about yourself through your entire life". It's an extremely pretentious, and, in my opinion, fatalistic thing to say. The vehement reaction is perfectly warranted in most cases.

[Creepy-bg]

I am very cautious about doubting people's self-typings. The amount of information, knowledge and understanding that any person has about him/herself is impossible to approach from an outsider's position. For this reason, I consider the self-typing to be the most reliable kind of information to be found in the world of socionics.

So yes, to doubt a person's type is like saying "I know more about you than you have been able to learn about yourself through your entire life". It's an extremely pretentious, and, in my opinion, fatalistic thing to say. The vehement reaction is perfectly warranted in most cases.

+10

[Lotus]

I am very cautious about doubting people's self-typings. The amount of information, knowledge and understanding that any person has about him/herself is impossible to approach from an outsider's position. For this reason, I consider the self-typing to be the most reliable kind of information to be found in the world of socionics.

So yes, to doubt a person's type is like saying "I know more about you than you have been able to learn about yourself through your entire life". It's an extremely pretentious, and, in my opinion, fatalistic thing to say. The vehement reaction is perfectly warranted in most cases.

That's not necessarily true. Usually it's, "you don't understand Socionics well enough to know that you're not this type. You're actually this type."
It's not really about "you don't know yourself," imo.

[Lotus]

That's often the argument of the outsider. It might be a valid argument in some cases ... but really, socionics isn't rocket science.

Yeah, but some people's views on it are so diverse that we might as well all be outsiders.

[Ritella]

i agree with the above.
also, i think the problem is less grave if people at least get your quadra right.
when people confuse your quadra it can make you feel like "do I really seem like I value X? i can't believe anyone would think that of me. " But, really, you have to take a step back and realize that you're just projecting your own values onto that person's observation- i.e., just because you think that element is "bad," other people don't necessarily think that; so, you're taking it as an "insult" when it may have exactly the opposite intent.

[Bardia]

Yea I think the biggest annoyance is people will say you don't understand the theory at all you are obviously not type X. I personally don't have a problem with my type being challenged at all. You have to have some sort of solid evidence though. Which most of the time people don't have.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Does it have to do with you feeling that your intelligence or ability to understand is lacking or under suspicion? Does it have to do with being invested in a type? Does it have to do with how the questioner questions, as in phrasing and tone? Does it have to do with... what?

Why is it like an attack to some? Why does it bother you?

I'm curious, because occasionally the strength or vehemence of some reactions surprises and baffles me. I would really like to know, particularly from those who find it offensive or bothersome, what it is exactly about having your self-typing questioned or disagreed with that you dislike?


And I would prefer personal examples and explanations above speculation about others' motivations or reasons, please.

Varying and different degrees of understanding of socionics, and perhaps even arrogance of someone to think they can work out another persons type without the other persons co-operation.

Personally, I don't mind discussing my type with people who I think are good at socionics or imo are reasonable headed people, and have done so in the past in such a one on one situation.

But I wouldn't take the time or make the effort to discuss myself with general forum, where many people I have observed have the most half assed reasons for suggesting types, and actually believing in those reasons rather than it just a suggestion.

Also.. Although this doesn't concern me so much, questioning someones type is also a means of bullying, look at Phaedrus for example, where it has been a witch hunt more than anything. So how can you be sure of someones motives when they do it? There is pack mentality to a public debate, at least on 16types forum, not forgetting varying degrees of competency and even differences of interpretation of socionics of those involved in said public discussion.

I think the aggressiveness of some of the discussions puts me off..and i'm also as sure as anyone can be of my type.

[FDG]

Speaking only about myself, it's because usually the arguments on which the suggestion are based are extremely weak, yet pushed with aggression. Moreover, I think that if a type gets "denied" by a person, then this decision must be accepted as definitive, since there is no other possible way to gather better information about the person than what the person hirself knows. This is something that usually does not happen.

If the reason is "you don't understand socionics to know your type enough", it's still a problem. There is no definite way to know if somebody understand socionics, or not. So, it's not a claim that can be easily made.

[Minde]

If you say so...

*plots to overthrow your self-image*

I am very cautious about doubting people's self-typings. The amount of information, knowledge and understanding that any person has about him/herself is impossible to approach from an outsider's position. For this reason, I consider the self-typing to be the most reliable kind of information to be found in the world of socionics.

So yes, to doubt a person's type is like saying "I know more about you than you have been able to learn about yourself through your entire life". It's an extremely pretentious, and, in my opinion, fatalistic thing to say. The vehement reaction is perfectly warranted in most cases.

I don't understand. Why does someone thinking they know more about you than you do bother you? Especially if you know it's not true? Unless you think it might be true...? Please explain. BG and Carla, I'd love to hear what you have to say on this, too.


Ok, so far, looking only at what people expressed as reasons for themselves, I've got:

- it's a threat to their self-image
- it confuses them (regarding their understanding of the theory, Errant?)
- casts doubt on their understanding of their theory (and thus intelligence? I'm not sure I completely understand the problem with this one unless it does indeed have to do with intelligence)
- people do it too harshly and abrasively
- they have to deal with the other person's (perceived) stupidity (thus wasting time and energy?)

Did I miss anything? Or misinterpret? If so, please correct / bring it to my attention. And, please, feel free to add more. But NOTE: The reason I don't want to hear "this is why other people shouldn't question other people's types" or "other people might not like it because [...]" is because I can come up with all of those possibilities and theories and whatnot myself. It's too detached and theoretical; and it's essentially just guesswork. What I don't already have access to and what I want here are people's own personal reactions, their actual thoughts and feelings when their types are questioned, and what it is of theirs that's getting prodded and poked.

I don't care what you think other people think and feel; what I care about is what you think and feel when your own type is questioned. I don't want to hear about "people"; I want to hear about you. I mean, you can talk about other stuff if you want, and it could be helpful, but... *shrug* it's not really what I'm looking for atm.

Although, perhaps this question is more difficult for people than I thought. Perhaps many of you don't really articulate to yourselves why you're reacting as you are? Perhaps some of you do not look at your own deeper motivations? I know for me, at least, it can be difficult to do so, especially in the heat of the moment (though sometimes those heated moments can lead to awful clarity). Or, perhaps this is just too personal a question. But, I don't know... <-- Anyway, you don't have to particularly mind this paragraph.

What I want to know is, when you genuinely get upset at someone for questioning your type, what of yours is getting threatened or hurt that would warrant strong reaction/retaliation?


EDIT: Perhaps I'm being too demanding here. Just answer how you like, I guess. But I really would prefer the personal over theoretical.

[Creepy-bg]

/edit feel free to replace the word "people" with "me" if it makes what I've written easier to digest



IDK maybe part of it is that much of the time people come to socionics while in the midst of a personal quest of sorts to find themselves. Then they have to deal with people TELLING them who they are and refusing to listen to their own self-knowledge, calling it faulty etc... forcing them to come up with arguments etc... to defend who they say they are. it just isn't what alot of people are looking for.

Also there's this thing where people don't just tell you that you're the wrong type... they talk about it over PMs and make consensus lists etc... it just gets annoying after a certain point and gives you a sort of jaded thinking towards socionics and the community.

Once a person gets a consensus typing they also have to deal from that point forward with having every disagreement or statement being dismissed with explanations of IM elements or quadra values.


idk its more annoyance than anything... like I've never gotten pissed at people for disagreeing with my self-typing (when I've made them). But the whole thing did reach a point where I just said "fuck it" because its a waste of time imo to argue that stuff with people. Even now, I'm hesitant to respond to this thread with my own words because I'm expecting to be questioned, questioned, questioned, in replies that I have no urge to clearify or have my responses further analyzed and used to "type" me further on down the road.


to be perfectly honest, even your last response minde made me go "....". I can't explain exactly why but there's something condecending about the summery of the responses (I know you don't mean it that way though). ugh I want to go back and erase this paragraph because I'm hearing annoying Joy and Niffweed voices in my head using this little perceptual thing as fuel for a further debate or confirmation of whatever they happen to believe.

anyways... hard to explain... in my case, it's just a matter of being sick of it all at this point. I have my understanding of socionics and it works for me. If people think I'm wrong, whatever.

[FDG]

IDK maybe part of it is that much of the time people come to socionics while in the midst of a personal quest of sorts to find themselves. Then they have to deal with people TELLING them who they are and refusing to listen to their own self-knowledge, calling it faulty etc... forcing them to come up with arguments etc... to defend who they say they are. it just isn't what alot of people are looking for.

Also there's this thing where people don't just tell you that you're the wrong type... they talk about it over PMs and make consensus lists etc... it just gets annoying after a certain point and gives you a sort of jaded thinking towards socionics and the community.

Once a person gets a consensus typing they also have to deal with that point forward with having every disagreement or statement being dismissed with explanations of IM elements or quadra values.


idk its more annoyance than anything... like I've never gotten pissed at people for disagreeing with my self-typing (when I've made them). But the whole thing did reach a point where I just said "fuck it" because its a waste of time imo to argue that stuff with people. Even now, I'm hesitant to respond to this thread with my own words because I'm expecting to be questioned, questioned, questioned, in replies that I have no urge to clearify or have my responses further analyzed and used to "type" me further on down the road.


to be perfectly honest, even your last response minde made me go "....". I can't explain exactly why but there's something condecending about the summery of the responses (I know you don't mean it that way though). ugh I want to go back and erase this paragraph because I'm hearing annoying Joy and Niffweed voices in my head using this little perceptual thing as fuel for a further debate or confirmation of whatever they happen to believe.

anyways... hard to explain... in my case, it's just a matter of being sick of it all at this point. I have my understanding of socionics and it works for me.

Yeah, I agree completely. Often, type-questioning is done to discredit another person's "reputation", so to speak, so that in the next debate his-her point of view will be readily dismissed by a one-liner such as "You can't understand this - you don't have Te/Ni/Fi/Se/etc in your ego block".

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Because I think we've already done enough liberal hand-wringing/intense introspection, plus the objective input of others. If you constantly harrass somebody on their type, its a bit prickish as you're taking their intelligence for granted.

If both you and your subjective reality and the objective reality agree on something, it always speaks the truth because that's all there is. I vi as IEI, I test as IEI, I agree that I'm IEI, and so do other people. Can this change? Yes, but its unlikely.

[Creepy-bg]

Because I think we've already done enough liberal hand-wringing/intense introspection, plus the objective input of others. If you constantly harrass somebody on their type, its a bit prickish as you're taking their intelligence for granted.

If both you and your subjective reality and the objective reality agree on something, it always speaks the truth because that's all there is. I vi as IEI, I test as IEI, I agree that I'm IEI, and so do other people. Can this change? Yes, but its unlikely.

exactly... the issue isn't so much "oh you questioned my type, boohoo!" as it is "k you think I'm a different type, now shut up about it already and stop following me around the forum with snide replys to everything I post".

[Minde]

to be perfectly honest, even your last response minde made me go "....". I can't explain exactly why but there's something condecending about the summery of the responses (I know you don't mean it that way though). ugh I want to go back and erase this paragraph because I'm hearing annoying Joy and Niffweed voices in my head using this little perceptual thing as fuel for a further debate or confirmation of whatever they happen to believe.

Sorry You're right - I totally did not mean for that summary list to be condescending. I meant it as a way for me to sort of summarize to myself what I had concretely gleaned thus far. It was more "note to self" and an opportunity for people to correct my understandings than "this is what is, people" or anything like that. Would it bother you if I kept updating/adding to my list publicly? Because I think it would help me understand more accurately if I rephrase in my own words, and then be corrected in my misunderstandings. And, if you could explain why it bothers you, that would be nice, too, but don't feel you have to. It would help me understand how not to make the same mistake again.

Your post was great, BG. Really, it gives me another angle on it, a view I had not yet come to. Thank you for giving that to me.

Honestly, a lot of what people are saying I already had an idea of and can perhaps even relate to. But I'm also gaining new bits and connections and views, which is really good. It's strengthening some thoughts, minimizing others, and adding new ones to my concept of it all.

Yeah, I agree completely. Often, type-questioning is done to discredit another person's "reputation", so to speak, so that in the next debate his-her point of view will be readily dismissed by a one-liner such as "You can't understand this - you don't have Te/Ni/Fi/Se/etc in your ego block".

Has this happened to you?

Because I think we've already done enough liberal hand-wringing/intense introspection, plus the objective input of others. If you constantly harrass somebody on their type, its a bit prickish as you're taking their intelligence for granted.

Just to be clear (because I like clarity), would it be accurate to change that quote to the following?

If you constantly harass me on my type, it's a bit prickish as you're taking my intelligence for granted.

[Creepy-bg]

Sorry You're right - I totally did not mean for that summary list to be condescending. I meant it as a way for me to sort of summarize to myself what I had concretely gleaned thus far. It was more "note to self" and an opportunity for people to correct my understandings than "this is what is, people" or anything like that. Would it bother you if I kept updating/adding to my list publicly? Because I think it would help me understand more accurately if I rephrase in my own words, and then be corrected in my misunderstandings. And, if you could explain why it bothers you, that would be nice, too, but don't feel you have to. It would help me understand how not to make the same mistake again.

Your post was great, BG. Really, it gives me another angle on it, a view I had not yet come to. Thank you for giving that to me.

ya i felt bad about saying that. I understand what you were doing with the summary so don't worry about it, it's your post/summary- feel free to update add. it won't bother me

further explanations will have to wait for tomarrow or the next day (actually have plans tomarrow that if all goes well, will involve a girl and NOT being on the internet lol ) I'll try to get back to ya though.

[Rubicon]

I don't mind it myself ... though it seems I use enough emoticons for my self-typing to be generally accepted ... but I prefer that someone give reasons for an alternate typing. That way you can let them know if you think they're on the wrong track, or take their suggestion into consideration if their reasoning makes sense.

[Trevor]

Come on, you naughty logical types, come and talk about your feelings.

[Gilly]

Oh hush, I'm teasing you

^this (except for Gilly )

*sigh of resignation*

[Rubicon]

I just wanna feel real love,
Feel the home that I live in.
'cause I got too much life,
Running through my veins, going to waste.

cheat!

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Jarno]

I am very cautious about doubting people's self-typings. The amount of information, knowledge and understanding that any person has about him/herself is impossible to approach from an outsider's position. For this reason, I consider the self-typing to be the most reliable kind of information to be found in the world of socionics.

So yes, to doubt a person's type is like saying "I know more about you than you have been able to learn about yourself through your entire life". It's an extremely pretentious, and, in my opinion, fatalistic thing to say. The vehement reaction is perfectly warranted in most cases.

I totally agree.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

I don't mind it myself ... though it seems I use enough emoticons for my self-typing to be generally accepted ...

This is sort of thing which I have heard by people which they think is valid reason for being alpha or beta. Emoticon usage does not = Fe valueing type.

[Rubicon]

This is sort of thing which I have heard by people which they think is valid reason for being alpha or beta. Emoticon usage does not = Fe valueing type.

I don't know what type I am then.

[Jarno]

Speaking only about myself, it's because usually the arguments on which the suggestion are based are extremely weak, yet pushed with aggression.

Yes, and I know a couple of (ex) forum members who used to do this on a daily basis.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

I don't know what type I am then.

I am sure you base your type on you and big wide world rather than forum posts and emoticon list.

(am I some Fe type now? (there I go again- ))

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Yes, and I know a couple of (ex) forum members who used to do this on a daily basis.

People become self-appointed experts on nothing, which I would conclude I myself have to be careful of, but not so much as some others and I also have that level of awareness in first place which I think makes a difference.

Personally i'm against starting a type thread for someone else. If they want to examine their type, they should do so by their own choice, and it needs in most cases their co-operation anyway, so it is up to individual to start their typing thread.

I think fair enough someone could consider suggesting looking at another type, but just starting a thread and discussing it like you know more about them-that you seem to think you don't even need their assistance to determine their type, is insulting to them and arrogant of yourself (and arrogance so often equals ignorance in the world of internet psychological type determining.)

[Rubicon]

I am sure you base your type on you and big wide world rather than forum posts and emoticon list.

Eh well, not really. I typed myself by calculating the average number of emoticons I use in my posts, and then comparing that figure with the average that members of confirmed types used. :-/

[Lotus]

It's like a whole new person that I wouldn't recognize (nor would anyone who knows me recognize) has been created by some people, and the image spread and reinforced amongst themselves. I see it happening to a lot of people. A person will say things and practically lay their life bare and the majority don't even see it. They don't see the person at all. They are only able to see the very superficial. So very much gets missed.

It's like that in other groups of people though too. You put me in another group that 'knows' me and a whole different person was created by them, one that again bears little resemblance to who I am. It's okay though, like I've said before it lets me be invisible.

Anyway, I don't care if people want to question my type, and don't mind the discussions at all. What I do sometimes mind is when a person assumes things that aren't even close to being true and uses those to make type suggestions.

Great post. I don't argue people's types often, but when I do I usually feel stupid about it later (especially in your case, Diana :/ ). The way we all interact on here makes us feel like we know each other better than you really do. It's so misleading too, because the posts where I reveal the most about who I really am aren't all-out-in-your-face-esque monologues. I reveal far more about myself than I probably should, but apparently it's very subtle, since it's not really picked up by most people anyway. There are no guidelines to follow in regards to what is or is not relevant to a person—some people express themselves through their posting style, some through their self-descriptions, others through the things they speak out against; in other words, you can't really compare one aspect of someone's expression to another person's and call them identicals.

Some people's perceptions of me are totally warped to the point where it's not even funny anymore. Most of the time I just let people think what they want—because anybody who would make stupid assumptions about me isn't worth setting straight anyway; but for some reason it really does bother me to a certain extent. I cringe at how something completely meaningless can get interpreted by someone else as something intrinsically related to me or something. I suppose one of the worst aspects of this is how it essentially cripples the communication between us. What I write about is going to be taken completely different if you think I'm this person than if it was coming from that person. A lot of what we think we relate to is based on falsity—on biases and assumptions.

I just try to remember that the people worth communicating with are the ones who will naturally understand me anyway. They don't need me to clarify things, and as long as you're content with those people then the rest don't matter. So in the end, why bother clarifying? However, despite how much I remind myself of this, I still find myself getting into pointless arguments for the sake of making sure I'm understood correctly. I don't know why I bother. Maybe I'm just stubborn and think that if I continue arguing they'll eventually understand what I really feel and think. Miscommunication sucks, especially when you think that it's miscommunication when it's really not.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Eh well, not really. I typed myself by calculating the average number of emoticons I use in my posts, and then comparing that figure with the average that members of confirmed types used. :-/

Unlikely when you consider you were typing yourself as ISFp before you joined socionic internet forums, but maybe you do this now that you have learned more about it all

[Rubicon]

Unlikely when you consider you were typing yourself as ISFp before you joined socionic internet forums, but maybe you do this now that you have learned more about it all

Well, I used a similar method prior to joining the forum - I just noted the average number of expressions I would use in a conversation of average length ... same idea really.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Well, I used a similar method prior to joining the forum - I just noted the average number of expressions I would use in a conversation of average length ... same idea really.

If you are referring to this forum (you were ISFp before this forum.)

How do you know the people you are comparing to are typed correctly? And what are the results? You seems to use more emoticons than Strrrng who is 3D Fe or Gilly who is 4D Fe so how do your results compare?

[Rubicon]

If you are referring to this forum (you were ISFp before this forum.)

How do you know the people you are comparing to are typed correctly? And what are the results? You seems to use more emoticons than Strrrng who is 3D Fe or Gilly who is 4D Fe so how do your results compare?

Well, it's a pretty fine line - certainly. But that's where you delve deeper into the typing process and take a look at the frequency of different types of emoticons a person uses. E.g. I think you'll find that Beta uses more emoticons, whereas Alpha uses more frequently. It's a pretty complex typing process, because you also have to take into account the intent behind the emoticon use e.g. a person could use , and still be an Alpha if it was used in jest. Or a person could use , and not be Alpha SF as long as the material they were confused about was of a certain difficulty level, etc.

[Gilly]

If you are referring to this forum (you were ISFp before this forum.)

How do you know the people you are comparing to are typed correctly? And what are the results? You seems to use more emoticons than Strrrng who is 3D Fe or Gilly who is 4D Fe so how do your results compare?

4D Fe? Cool.