Do you believe that VI is "the closest thing to an empirical and foolproof standard of evidence that Socionics has going for it"?
Yes
No
The usefulness of VI
Do you believe that VI is "the closest thing to an empirical and foolproof standard of evidence that Socionics has going for it"?
I'd disagree.Originally Posted by glamourama
You, as a certain type, can not only misinterpret a relationship, but also you could mistype the person you are relationally comparing them against.
Whereas VI (if you have VI down) is absolutely centered on that one person.
The end is nigh
This.
That phrase may make sense for those who don't know the meaning of the following words: "empirical", "foolproof", "evidence" and "socionics".
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
Expat clearly doesn't know what empircal, foolproof, evidence and socionics means, considering there is not as yet scientifically valid results for intertype relations or VI.
In my experience intertype relations do give a better guide to a persons type, but VI can be extremely useful as a first look 'snapshot', which can be invaluable when one needs to know what they are dealing with in advance, say work related interactions for instance among other things.
Definetly not, neither of those two are
...the human race will disappear. Other races will appear and disappear in turn. The sky will become icy and void, pierced by the feeble light of half-dead stars. Which will also disappear. Everything will disappear. And what human beings do is just as free of sense as the free motion of elementary particles. Good, evil, morality, feelings? Pure 'Victorian fictions'.
INTp
I don't know wether I'm a rebellian now, but there is enough of empirical data available for Socionics.
Actually I don't know what everyone is waiting for. What kind of 'evidence' would you need to accept the claims that Socionics makes.
Ofcourse needless to say that there doesn't exists something as totally foolproof in our world, only paradigms that work for a while. Including Socionics.
To get on topic: VI is not (yet) the main argument for Socionics
Last edited by Jarno; 05-02-2009 at 09:51 AM.
Your avatar reminds me of blood.Definetly not, neither of those two are
You're basing a personality theory on what people look like, so how exactly is that a personality theory anymore? Looks are only one side of the complexity of personality. V.I. is supposed to be a prepatory aid, not a defining factor for personality. If V.I. was the biggest thing going for socionics, then it might as well be reestablished as a session in Si. You remind me of this person etc. Soon these people are just going to be comparing photographs all the time without any reference to a personality theory. Maybe for some people, but not real socionicists.
.
The question was:
Yes... BLOOD FOR THE JAGUAR-GOD!
No wait, not until 2012.
...the human race will disappear. Other races will appear and disappear in turn. The sky will become icy and void, pierced by the feeble light of half-dead stars. Which will also disappear. Everything will disappear. And what human beings do is just as free of sense as the free motion of elementary particles. Good, evil, morality, feelings? Pure 'Victorian fictions'.
INTp
I love you Carla.
If a proper scientific study was done which no sane person could argue with, then it could find VI predicted inter-type relations also so then there is a chicken and an egg scenario. My actual second paragraph on my initial post which was in response to this thread's question touched on this.
I think your question was intended to be a little inflammatory anyway, but I think that yes should a study be done, VI *alone* shouldn't be investigated or used as socionics main proponent.
If we use intertype relations, another problem is that not even socionists can agree on people types, so that people have types should probably be investigated first or at least at the same time. There has already been some work done by a group of socionists in the East to determine preferred modes of conversations of those they believe share the same information elements. But really, in short, I can't answer your question without more information, if I want to be impartial and fair, it's too black and white for my tastes and closes down any other useful input if all we can do is talk about VI and not use it as part of many tools.
Moving back to responding to this post of yours; it's a massive task, but to state things as facts as Expat did is mis-leading when all we've really got is opinions of what could constitute empirically valid things, being before any study has begun ie stating as a fact that 'Intertype relations are the closest thing to empirically valid information and anyone who says VI is doesn't understand the words empirical, foolproof, evidence and socionics' is really jumping the gun when the idea of scientific study is to be objective and make such conclusions afterwards and this should be obvious. In an ideal world all things are kept in with an open mind, VI or otherwise, until the evidence from a study by the scientific method starts to become available. Re difficulty in answering your question for me, being a Te valuer and trying to keep an open mind to any possible results before a study begins.
And back to this threads topic, elaborating further, but perhaps tangentially; I can't see any of us here having the time and the money to invest in making it a scientifically valid personality theory predictor, so I'm not sure if I see the point in this thread's question if we aren't able to realise it with an actual fair impartial answer, perhaps you could elaborate on the threads point for me? I invite you to take the information I have typed here into consideration when you reply. Also, would I be right that this thread's purpose is at least in part an attempt by you to ridicule those people who have been talking about VI on the forum, but you don't actually have much capacity to state your thought on those people outright?
Last edited by Cyclops; 05-02-2009 at 06:24 PM.
My personal view is that personality traits and relationships are a better indicator of a person's type than what an individual looks like.
A person who relies on VI alone would have a database of individuals who have all been typed...presumably not through VI? If they have been typed through VI, then it's a different personality theory. If they've been typed through intertype relationships, then how do you verify that the VI is more accurate by typing someone else as the same type because of their visual similarity?
I don't know why you would think part of my reason behind starting this thread would be to ridicule those who talk about VI on the forum.
.
If VI - in particular, picture VI - is seen as more important than other evidence in terms of people's traits, relations with others, etc, then what we're talking about it's what has been known for centuries as physiognomy.
To compare, say, one static picture of Bill Gates with one of Richard Dawkins and say that perceived (and, yes, subjective) similarities make them of the same type (or even of similar types) in the absence of other evidence, and say that these perceived similarities are reason enough (rather than just a "help" in the process) to type them, it's just a crude form of circular thinking.
Sure, we can have a type theory based on "people of similar gazes" and "people with similar facial structures" to define type A and B. But it will be very hard to correlate those with socionics types, Jungian types, or whatever.
One way to do it would be:
- a bunch of socionists types a sampling of people with all information available except visual contact (audio interviews, written questions, all possible information on their lives, relationships, live interviews with everyone they know, etc etc)
- they agree on the likeliest types for the sampling of those people
- then, other socionists get lots of pictures of the same individuals - and no other information - and try to type them with base on their VI alone.
Even this experiment would not "prove" it, but I think that results way above statistical chance would go a long way to indicate that there is, indeed, something to VI.
But if you assume that VI is the best way to type people, overruling any other evidence, then all you're doing is to group people together according to very subjective impressions of their appearance, and nothing else. Which to me is the socionics equivalent of playing with dolls.
Which means, of course, that such a person does not really rely on VI alone. VI is in that case a correlation that is useful for first guesses, not the data themselves. Which is a perfectly acceptable form of VI imo.
You can't. It's logically impossible, unless you shift gears and decide that your raw data are no longer the relationships or traits, but the visuals themselves.
Yes exactly. That's all it is. V.I. was meant to be at most "even" with all the other methods of typing, because having all of these methods and descriptions builds upon the relativity of things, and we start to have clear objectivism. It's comparing face with personality with face, not just face with face. Personality as a whole remains at the core of this theory and we extract the smaller units like V.I. and relations out of it, especially when we type people. They work as a team.
Oops, except I also gave direct quotes, not just VI.
And do I judge based solely on VI? Nope. When did I ever say this?
And you can tell that those two random celebrities you displayed, Carla, are different even if they are "gazing".
Lol I do not think VIing is fool proof, but if you are actually adept at it then I'd prefer that over trying to interpret someone's relationship any day of the week.
That's why I say VI, speech patterns, and interests. Relationships is the last thing I look at, although a particularly off prediction will most likely cause a re-evaluation.
The end is nigh
I didn't think you meant it either. But this whole idea of "the best single way to type people" is coming on a little too strong.
But you posted several photos of non-Richard Dawkins celebrities in that thread, claiming they showed that RD was ENTp. You did not provide an explanation as to why they looked similar (I didn't think so personally), and I'm sure many people would doubt the majority of those celebrities being ENTp based on their personality traits anyway.
Well you never answered my questions, but i'll elaborate on your first paragraph: that's your opinion and I respect it, but for myself I will provide the following information even if it just for the sake of it; it's not uncommon for people to judge others based on what they look like, whether they know about socionics or not. So people analyse by visual means before analysing a persons personality all the time.
And a side note re VI, are you aware that there has been some scientific study done to determine how aggressive a person is within their own inherent nature based purely on their facial shape? And that the results were shown to be empirically valid? This could be a pointer that it is at least worth exploring VI.
As a *tangential* side note - put it down to my dynamic IP temperament (coupled in this context, indeed most others with my ego function Te): I guess it confuses me how people such as yourself seem to form conclusions like you did in the first paragraph of your last post without seemingly assessing, or discussing all (or any) of the facts, but it's something quite common in Ti types ime, esp leading Ti's and I see it often in you, so like I mentioned to you at some point before - that I think you are INTj not INFj, perhaps the way you draw conclusions is another thing for you to consider for being in the Ti camp ;-)
Edit: subT I see that you've increased the size of your last post to me and that other chatter has occured since I hit the reply button, so if there is something I am not covering in this post or this post is confusing to you to begin with, I would ask that you keep this in mind and still respond to it - if you feel have something to say of course. I will read the extra bit(s) you've added, and respond if I feel they require a response by me, but I can't do either at the moment, as I have to go just now.
Last edited by Cyclops; 05-02-2009 at 07:17 PM.
to be fair, whatever Archon's typing methods are, i don't think it matters...
EII; E6(w5)
i am flakey
like what, Bill Gates being rich?
and yep I coulda given an explanantion, you're right.
@ Ritella: oh go away.
The end is nigh
EII; E6(w5)
i am flakey
I guess you didn't.
But when you say things like these:
And from the Richard Dawkins thread:
You don't judge "solely on VI", ok, but VI seems to be your single most important criterion, with more weight than others.
I think V.I. is for quick typing, but not accurate typing. It's a first guess approach, but I've never seen its majority of results accurate, no matter how much the person fits the traits. Any more than with a grain of salt, it's just silly. Socionics go out of their way like other theorists do, just to type people into visual categorizations and prove the point that these features usually go along with this type, thus all these people are SEI (for example), but most of those pictures are just to set an example, not to be taken as true. It's assuming truth to make a point.
Well, to me, VI is something that is almost involuntary. It happens often that I see a person and then a type just pops in my head, as in, "he's SLE!" or whatever. But I would never claim - not even for my own personal use - that that first impression is all that I need; and I think that to deconstruct a VI typing, to the point of discussing fine details of the shape of their faces or whatever their gaze looks like, is far less useful than to try to get other kinds of information on the person.
You yourself hypothesised that:
the most accurate way to type people is to use VI to get their race and height, then use their religion to confirm. relationships should only be considered if they're jewish, because jews are shapeshifters.
And just out of curiosity, do you assume that you're wrong most of the time? Knowing what belongs in each category hasn't been good enough because nobody fits into a category perfectly, but to me V.I. has been even less fitting for people. There is commonality in faces, and recognizing it comes impulsively because we're humans, programed to recognize faces, but it's not the most important criterion because extracting a categorization in personality it is usually wrong, but still a good percentage of it is right. That's why I'm saying it's a decent first guess, because getting to know the person is obviously the most important factor. What is right are the underlying factors of the categorizations: the model and functions, and the only thing that sets the idea of using it is a disagreement upon definitions and their difficulty of descriminating. It's the same thing for V.I. though. There is disagreement.
I think it could be ESI, which would also explain why you have such a love-hate relationship with it.Could someone VI my ass:
(Looks a little like Natalie Portman, yeah?)
EII; E6(w5)
i am flakey
Carla has a cute ass
Depends. How many times have you been told to "go fuck yourself?" and how many times have you actually done it? because that might lead me to assume your ass is your dual type.I think it could be ESI, which would also explain why you have such a love-hate relationship with it.
It's already been explained at least twice in this thread why that approach wouldn't work. If you could link up a type with an individual after doing a proper facial analysis with a computer program, it would show that you defined arbitary facial parameters in a computer program and then linked them up to an 'arbitary' type profile.
You could of course compare the results with typings carried out by a study of personality traits - but that would only tell you the degree to which they disagreed.
The people who are linked up with the type profile might not even resemble that particular type profile the best - but because only VI was used, and because the computer analysis disagrees with the typings carried out by an analysis of personality traits, how do you tell which is right?
I asked you this question, among others to draw clarification from you and you continually evade answering. You could easily clarify yourself by answering.
Part of the bigger picture here, observe how you've avoided discussing the various logical Te reasoning and facts that I have provided in my last few posts. That's fine (although disrespectful) because i'm not going to pressurise you anymore for a reply.
----
To others reading the thread: My last few posts, not necessarily this one which seems to be subt having some issues unrelated to the topic of VI, have been related to the topic of this thread, feel free to respond to them (or even subt being INTj if you wish). Also I hope that some of you who have or wish to read them find them to be of service to you for what they are, as that has been my motivation for posting on this thread.
Edit: quick reply to your subsequent addition to your post (lol there are posts and editing posts seemingly flying all over the place)! I don't see how it means VI doesn't work, or how it's been shown on this thread that it doesn't, I suggest you could ask me for more information on this study I refer to before drawing your conclusion on it ;-)
That's a misconception I may or may not have caused.
Speech Patterns/content is the most important thing for me, and VI is like third because I don't trust myself in it enough.
The end is nigh
This thread wasn't started to ridicule those who talk about VI on the forum.
I have not been avoiding the so called "various logical Te reasoning and facts" you have been providing - it's just that I don't see them as relevant, and you should have seen why for the reasons Carla provided before you even posted in this thread.
Erm...I don't see how what I said means that I don't think VI has any merit whatsoever. But that wasn't what was asked in the initial post of this thread.
Hi mayor. Nice to meet you.
I am no mayor, sirrah!
I am an Archon of the ancient house of U'rien. My father was Redgan, the obsidian arrow. His father was Darrath, hammer of the Elrimoni scum!
My linneage is long and titled, paysan! What can you say for yours?
The end is nigh
If you say so.I haven't heard many Te seekers saying that further information isn't relevant, how could this work for a Te ego type who would have someone not appreciate or see the merit in additional information when it's one of their strengths? I see it happen in non-Te valuers, again the case grows for Ti leading, as per my previous posts on this subject.it's just that I don't see them as relevant, and you should have seen why for the reasons Carla provided before you even posted in this thread.
I haven't been reading Carla's posts in there entirety, i've just been focusing for the most part on conversing with you, so you could be right that she's proven something or other. From what I have seen from what I have had the time to read, the 'chicken and the egg' scenario I mentioned earlier could cover what Carla says, possibly.
And to back to what I said earlier, i'm not saying VI is the main proponent of VI, but I don't think VI is about VI'ing people's asses, as much as some people do have interesting and attractive ones ha.
I'm saying that a comprehensive study of socionics and all it's artibutes could make it one of the best means of type identification. It could even affect intertype relations, on the simple basis that it helps if people are attracted to each other in duality relations, and typically people that are attracted to each other tend to be what's regarded as being in a similar scale of attractiveness appearance-wise. It's even been found that people of similar lung capacity find each other more attractive, perhaps because genetic attraction/compatibility plays it's part also, which is something else which could in the future itself be developed by scientific research, and all these things come together by scientists comparing and developing others results. In short, again, we don't know enough about anything being empirically valid with certainty to present a scientifically valid case at this stage until proper scientific research is done, we have in fairness our- at least partially educated opinions.
Point taken. What are you saying? It's getting to the stage when I am no longer sure what you are saying or what you are looking for!Erm...I don't see how what I said means that I don't think VI has any merit whatsoever.Right, it's the second time you've said this to me, but the thread has evolved. I see nothing wrong personally with the thread moving on to other topics, some of which are even still connected to the threads actual initial question.But that wasn't what was asked in the initial post of this thread.
But.. I already answered your initial thread question extremely comprehensively. Refer back to that if you want to go back to keeping the thread 'on topic', but I can't guarantee that will happen for everyone, for instance, if you are aware of ESTj's and ISTp's, you'll know how they like to talk and digress on subjects they are interested in, done in a way quite particular to Te.
Look at Richard Dawkins for instance, and how his books are like a wall of information, occasionally digressing on to other information related topics before moving back to the initial topic of his book. (On on this instance I agree with Expat's last typing of him which if I recall correctly was ESTj. If he doesn't type him as ESTj then I do!)
See, i'm doing it again, digressing! I'll leave you to it, I really need to go just now.
Reply With Quote
