Temperament can be misleading in Socionics

[JuJu]

This post was taken from the end of the post "Similar forum members," in response to a discussion between Nick and Gilly... I added to it a bit here so that it stands by itself.

---

That temperament is as influential as it is in English-speaking Socionics--bc of various factors: MBTI's popularity in English-speaking countries, its emphasis on temperament, and Cartrette's old 16types info page, which emphasized sanguine, choleric, etc--is unfortunate.

I wasted years mistyping myself in Socionics b/c Ej temperament descriptions portrayed someone I thought of as a bit too stiff, too mobile, too focused, etc, to be me. (e.g. I was comparing myself to a lot of the blabber-mouths I know--obvious Ejs--running around doing 300 things at once, and thinking to myself, "that's not me..." You know, some days I just want to chill in bed... These descriptions make Ejs sound like caffeinated robots... Or like my Te-ESTj Dad.)

Perhaps the problem is not with temperament itself, but with the current descriptions..? Idk

Regardless:

"Temperament" can be influenced by a shitload of non-Socionics factors, e.g. depression, medication, motivation, disabilities, ADD, etc. It's also the probably easiest Socionics-related personality characteristic to fake/consciously control. (my friend goes quiet at parties just to get hos.)

For this reason, temperament can be an unreliable indicator of Socionics type.

Subtypes do not explain temperament well either... E.g. one could be relatively quiet and still be a Fe-ENFj, (see: above Non-socionics factors,) or loud and still be a INTj. (I met a very communicative Ti-INTj the other day... He is a famous artist... He has lots of self-confidence and is quite talkative, forceful, etc... Not at all like the INTj stereotype of a somewhat shy, nerdy, math-whiz... Although maybe he is that in his free-time. Who knows?)

Temperament is still useful in Socionics' typing--albeit only slightly... At this point, way too much emphasis is placed on temperament in our community.

As regards typing, the functions are where it's at... The functions you notice ppl using... In my experience, you need to see and feel and know the functions for yourself (vs. just reading the descriptions of them) to accurately type people.

This has become more and more clear to me as I have met and correctly typed more and more ppl of various types/looks/energy levels, etc.

That's the message.

---
from a post below, clarifying:

Intovert/Extrovert is misunderstood by many people here--and as Socionics grows, it will continue to be misunderstood by even more people.

This is because the terms are fairly colloquial, and thus mean different things to different people... (E.g. I can be "introverted." I have been told such and think of myself as such sometimes... I am not, however, a Socionics introvert.)

Same with Rational/irrational... E.g. I can be irrational. (I'm frequently criticized for being irrational... And Ep temperament descriptions fit my behavior better than Ej temperament descriptions.) I am not, however, a Socionics irrational.

These terminological pitfalls stand in the way of people typing themselves and others correctly. And ppl here often fall in them, conflating them with "temperament." (e.g. DeAnte, Winterpark... and me, for a long, long time.) Thus my call for better descriptions, or at least clarification regarding what temperament really is.

[Trevor]

temperament can be an unreliable indicator of Socionics type.

Static-Dynamic dichotomy is a reliable indicator of socionics type.
Rational_Irrational dichotomy is a reliable indicator of socionics type.
Extrovert_Introvert dichotomy is a reliable indicator of socionics type.

Temperament is compounded of those 3 dichotomies, therefore I think it's reasonable to think of Temperament as a reliable indicator of socionics type. Maybe we(or just you JuJu, or what) need a better descriptions of Temperaments.

[JuJu]

Static-Dynamic dichotomy is a reliable indicator of socionics type.
Rational_Irrational dichotomy is a reliable indicator of socionics type.
Extrovert_Introvert dichotomy is a reliable indicator of socionics type.

I disagree with your last two points... And this is an important point:

Intovert/Extrovert is misunderstood by many people here--and as Socionics grows, it will continue to be misunderstood by even more people.

This is because the terms are fairly colloquial, and thus mean different things to different people... (E.g. I can be "introverted." I have been told such and think of myself as such sometimes... I am not, however, a Socionics introvert.)

Same with Rational/irrational... E.g. I can be irrational. (I'm frequently criticized for being irrational... And Ep temperament descriptions fit my behavior better than Ej temperament descriptions.) I am not, however, a Socionics irrational.

These terminological pitfalls stand in the way of people typing themselves and others correctly. And ppl here often fall in them, conflating them with "temperament." (e.g. DeAnte, Winterpark... and me, for a long, long time.) Thus my call for better descriptions, or at least clarification regarding what temperament really is.


I agree with you, however, about Static and dynamic... Once people learn how to recognize static and dynamic, they are on their way to typing correctly.

[Trevor]

I disagree with your last two points... And this is an important point:

Intovert/Extrovert is misunderstood by many people here--and as Socionics grows, it will continue to be misunderstood by even more people.

This is because the terms are fairly colloquial, and thus mean different things to different people... (E.g. I can be "introverted." I have been told such and think of myself as such sometimes... I am not, however, a Socionics introvert.)

So you say that you disagree with my point that "Extrovert-Introvert dichotomy is a reliable indicator of socionics type". Do bear in mind that the thing which i denoted as an Extrovert-Introvert dichotomy is not necessarily the same thing as colloquial-extrovert-introvert-dychotomy. Same goes for the Irrational-Rational dichotomy.

[JuJu]

I get what you mean, yes.

The problem is, I believe, for many people, (not you, but many here,) the colloquial = the Socionics... And thus there's lots of confusion as to temperament.

I'm trying to draw the distinction for people between the colloquial and the Socionics with this post.

(I'm hoping to help them realize that maybe they're thinking about temperament in a way that's more aligned with the colloquial than the theory.)

[717495]

One must also consider that the functions resolve to dichotomy in a way that socionics type is also defined by dichotomy. I'm Ti ego. Ti is comprised as introversion and thinking into one part, and theory should somehow distinguish between introversion and extroversion, for what would be the difference between introverted and extroverted logic, and when you extract the term of introversion from Ti over to Si, why is there commonality? If no commonality exists, then there is really no base for introversion in socionics. Not necessarily can introversion be described. What certainty does description have in terms of introversion, and can certainty be substituted in terms of static?

[Mattie]

Dichotomies overall are dangerous, in my opinion, especially the ones that carry over from MBTI. It works for the MBTI system (besides easing typing) because there's a spectrum between, say, Extroversion and Introversion, so you can be any shade of that and fit into a type still. That doesn't translate into socionics because the spectrum doesn't exist in the dichotomies that we use, they are found more in the types themselves. Dichotomies, temperaments, clubs, etc, are used only because they are short-cuts to typing, but they easily can lead people astray and muddy typings. I have to agree with using only functions to type, seeing what is used, valued, etc. There's no other reason to type other ways since this promotes actually understanding the functions and they are what make up types. All of these other superficial details can be a result of other factors that are unique to an individual's life, and have little to do with their actual type.

[717495]

The patterns of elements defined under MBTI dichotomy however work separately for rationals and irrationals, for instance look at socionics relations, the foundation of interaction values. Perhaps then should one define rational and irrational properly, and make a separation, before defining the temperaments, hence what extroversion and introversion, static and dynamic, really refer to depend greatly upon rationality/irrationality. That is a large difference from MBTI, evidently.

[Trevor]

To summarize: Socionics is not always easy to grasp as it may seem at first glance. Imperfectness of descriptions is one of the reasons for that.

[xerx]

Temperaments are fine descriptors. You just have to properly relate it to the underlying function the person is using. Temperaments as most people use them are crap.

[ArchonAlarion]

Maybe for some, but not for me.

Also JuJu maybe Ej doesn't sit well for you because you're an Ne ENFp?

Also I feel kinda strawmanned in this because I don't even do temperament by introversion and extraversion and in fact none of us evil scheming "Xians" do.

We go by static and dynamic and rational and irrational

Ep's are static irrational
Ip's are dynamic irrational
Ij's are static rational
Ej's are Dynamic rational

then on top of that you have the sub-temperament, which is based on the subtype's mode.

So as a Ti ENTp I am a Static irrational (Ep) with a Static field oriented subtype (Ji Ep)

All 8 sub temperaments have their own quirks and behaviors, which as you spend time VIing and non-VI typing you pick up on.

When describing field and object orients, I prefer Augusta's "introtim" and "extrotim" to remove myself from the folkish and colloquial connotations of "Introversion" and "extraversion"

So yeah this is a bit of a strawman, seeing as we don't even use introversion and extraversion for temperaments, so if you were pointing this towards us you are wrong in doing so.

[Lotus]

Temperament is still useful in Socionics' typing--albeit only slightly... At this point, way too much emphasis is placed on temperament in our community.

A lot of people here tend to decry the use of temperments without first taking into consideration their role in Socionics and how they affect intertype relations. I think treating temperments as malleable is a guaranteed means of butchering intertype relations.

For one, how can you disregard energy levels and behavioral patterns as insignificant to compatibility?

Sometimes people can turn me off solely because of their energy levels and their way of doing things. Like how someone I find really intelligent, funny, and to overall be a pretty cool person can become hard to be around because of the way in which they express their internal traits.

There won't be anything awkward about it. There won't be tension or annoyance, there's just an overall physical feeling that this person can't “keep up” with my particular pace.
And that's all it feels like really—a difference in pace:

noun
¹ he stepped back a pace STEP, stride.
² a slow, steady pace GAIT, stride, walk, march.
³ he drove home at a furious pace SPEED, rate, velocity; informal clip, lick.

Sometimes friction is obvious and other times it may be more subtle (due to environmental/cultural factors). But if you think that there is no significance between being IJ vs. EP, or IP vs. EJ, etc. then you really have zero awareness of physical compatibility between people.

[Mattie]

I agree with what Xerxes said, that the problem isn't with temperaments themselves, it's with people's understanding and use of them.

what I find that has way too much emphasis at the moment in this community, is the huge importance put on VI. you and some others seem to come to definitive conclusions on someone's type just by looking at a few pictures of them (not even video, which is much better for typing and not just VI anymore), with no real functional analysis involved. that's way worse than using temperaments to type people, imo.

I have to agree with Glam here as well. It's off-putting when some people are like "I see a picture of you and now know how your personality functions." and expect everyone to take that 100%.

[munenori2]

what I find that has way too much emphasis at the moment in this community, is the huge importance put on VI. you and some others seem to come to definitive conclusions on someone's type just by looking at a few pictures of them (not even video, which is much better for typing and not just VI anymore), with no real functional analysis involved. that's way worse than using temperaments to type people, imo.

YES

[Azeroffs]

I agree with what Xerxes said, that the problem isn't with temperaments themselves, it's with people's understanding and use of them.

+1

what I find that has way too much emphasis at the moment in this community, is the huge importance put on VI. you and some others seem to come to definitive conclusions on someone's type just by looking at a few pictures of them (not even video, which is much better for typing and not just VI anymore), with no real functional analysis involved. that's way worse than using temperaments to type people, imo.

+100

[Creepy-Cyclops]

In fairness to JuJu, his VI'ing appears to be quite accurate.

Seems he was right about polikujm, deante, maybe Bardia, Sirena. There may be more that I haven't noticed, or I haven't watched the forum to spot them all, but off the top of my head I can't think of any he's got wrong. Perhaps others are more informed.

Of course it can be difficult to take VI at face value, with no evidence that other people can understand for themselves, but at the same time, i've seen a lot of people being so convinced of their types through functional analysis, only to change it at a later date.

I'm sure the forum is big enough to encompass all methods, or at least VI and model A.

Seeing something that works is intriguing.

For my part, I use anything that works for the situation, VI, temperaments, functions, the main and even reinin dichotomies, and imo when one is diagnosing something (type as in this instance), all the diagnostic tools should be considered, and on a forum, various specialists should or would hopefully be available for whatever method(s).

[JuJu]

what I find that has way too much emphasis at the moment in this community, is the huge importance put on VI. you and some others seem to come to definitive conclusions on someone's type just by looking at a few pictures of them (not even video, which is much better for typing and not just VI anymore), with no real functional analysis involved. that's way worse than using temperaments to type people, imo.

You say "way worse..."

But please, be honest with yourself, Glam... Why are you writing this?? And does it really make sense to write that in light of...

---

I agree with you: it's bad when ppl here use VI and consistently get it wrong. (Just about everyone on the forum does this.)

---

I have come to realize that I've developed a unique (at least within this particular community) skill at VI.

I've worked hard at doing so...

Currently, I can type ppl quickly and with a very high degree of accuracy, (i.e. w/in the correct quadra and dyad.)

Obviously, I get typings wrong sometimes...

However, consider how often I get them right...

---

So why are you complaining..? My hunch is: b/c you can't yet do the aforementioned, and thus can't fathom how someone else can... You may think it's impossible, or untrue... Idk

What I'm telling you is:
Open your mind and let something new in.

If you work at it--as with any other skill--you can become great at VI... I'm willing to teach you, if you want...

[Creepy-Cyclops]

I'm not sure what to make of functions. Allow me to explain: yes they are important, but to use as a typing method on the forum? It seems to me that there are so many disagreements on what functions really are, and how they apply to the types that it can lead to more confusion than not using them, perhaps unfortunately.

I suppose it comes down to what works for the individual in their own lives. Unless all forum members have to adhere to the same school (maybe like socionics workshop), there will always be disagreements. (Of course attaching to the same school doesn't make something right, it just means censored forms of disagreements).

Octopuslove, it may be worth noting, that a possible solution, which is used by most Russian socionics sites, is to use primarily dichotomies for typing purposes.

[Mattie]

I could have a long post quoting all of what octopuslove has been saying, I pretty much 100% agree with her. This is what I really care about though:

I think the problem this community currently has with VI is that people turn to it in preference to understanding functions and information elements. I've noticed that a lot of newer forum members have posted multiple VI threads and use them for typing purposes rather than really trying to analyse function use. VI is a useful tool, yes; but it shouldn't be the primary tool, especially at the beginning of one's foray into socionics. So the problem isn't so much emphasis on VI, it's emphasis on VI to the detriment of proper understanding and discussion.

I have noticed this as well, how newcomers' have been posting stuff to VI rather than showing much evidence in learning the functions. As a point, how can someone know how to VI without a good knowledge of the functions themselves? The functions are the core of this theory, you simply can't go anywhere deep without them... That's why we all like Socionics over MBTI! Because there's a much stronger focus on the functions than dichotomies and (bad) temperaments.

My agreement with Glam's post wasn't really directed at JuJu, but in general to these ridiculous fights in VI threads, no matter what the "real" reason is. Ever since I've been snooping around, it seems like it's either VI or petty drama where all the arguing is, very few in other methods of typing. I think there is something to VI and I may or may not have a knack for it, but there's a clear focus on it in the community, with a lot of questionable skill.

JuJu, I'd really like it if you did take yourself up on helping people with VI. You started that one thread a couple weeks ago and I thought that was a nice start, but you didn't really explain anything for people to grasp how to VI. I understand that you feel like your cause is noble, but to be really frank, I see you saying a lot and not doing much. You want to help and enlighten and show how good this is... Then do it!

[ArchonAlarion]

Lol functional analysis on the forum is basically useless.

Wtf are you going to do?

"I enjoy logic and emotions"

"WELL THEN YOU MUST BE Ti!!!!!!21@@!"

Its pretty ridiculous to type someone based on stupid little biographies they write about themselves.

Pictures do no lie, videos do not lie.

The only sort of text I'm interested in are quotes from people who do not know socionics and analyzing the style that people write in.

Content is for the most part meaningless as it can be easily altered, fabricated, exaggerated, and forer'ed.


So what do you guys propose?

[Not A Communist Shill]

Lol functional analysis on the forum is basically useless.

Wtf are you going to do?

"I enjoy logic and emotions"

"WELL THEN YOU MUST BE Ti!!!!!!21@@!"

Its pretty ridiculous to type someone based on stupid little biographies they write about themselves.

Pictures do no lie, videos do not lie.

The only sort of text I'm interested in are quotes from people who do not know socionics and analyzing the style that people write in.

Content is for the most part meaningless as it can be easily altered, fabricated, exaggerated, and forer'ed.


So what do you guys propose?

Of course "Pictures do no lie, videos do not lie."...but then neither do the temperaments. The problem is people interpreting them the wrong way....and this will always be the case. And hence the real problem is when people become dogmatic about the temperaments and about VI.

Another problem is when people rewrite Model A and the intertype relationships and fill the forum with their nonsense because they believe that the intertype relationships as describe by Socionics do not work in their personal case...or for example believe they are Ti-dominant and yet are ENTp types - people talking from such a different perspective in Model A sections of the forum do lie...and it isn't helpful for those wish to benefit from what mainstream Socionics has to teach them.

I've never taken VI, the temperaments, introversion vs. extroversion etc. at face value - and I am astonished when people like JuJu can be here for so long and yet behave so dogmatically...there have been endless discussions about the problems of taking such things at face value, and it seems that some people never learn. The temperaments describe four types of energy, IJ, EP, EJ, EP, yes - but if you utilise them, they should be used as a shorthand for noting a person's behaviour in some cases - temperaments are not always useful, but for example, if someone comes across as an EP type (according to your understanding of the temperaments), then this may be a useful notation. A later observation that the person comes across as Fe Ego may also prove insightful, even if seemingly contradictory to your previous observation.

[Mattie]

Lol functional analysis on the forum is basically useless.

Wtf are you going to do?

"I enjoy logic and emotions"

"WELL THEN YOU MUST BE Ti!!!!!!21@@!"

Its pretty ridiculous to type someone based on stupid little biographies they write about themselves.

Pictures do no lie, videos do not lie.

The only sort of text I'm interested in are quotes from people who do not know socionics and analyzing the style that people write in.

Content is for the most part meaningless as it can be easily altered, fabricated, exaggerated, and forer'ed.


So what do you guys propose?

While I see where you come from, you hyperbolize the situation, and I feel like that diminishes the value of what people are striving for rather than wanting to find a common good. You're right, some dumb stereotyping on silly one instance only situations happen. Okay, now that we're past that, how can assure people know how to VI without knowing the functions? I feel like people wanting to VI from the beginning are learning this... caricature of Socionics, like they are learning the mask and not the brains behind it. What I find unsatisfying is that, so far, the majority of people explaining VI only teach or back up their assertions with OTHER pictures or by insulting other peoples' perception. Basically, where is that one ultimate picture that all other pictures can be compared to? There isn't any, you have to know the functions, experience them offline through correct typings, and then come back and practice VI. You can't jump straight to VI.

When I first came back, seeing people hollering over pictures really turned me off to the idea. I was a lot more comfortable with videos because at least you got how they spoke, moved, etc, and you can actually see functions being used live. But with a photo, there's this one static instance that may or may not match any other instance in this person's life! These were my first thoughts on VI when coming back, because when I was here before, VI didn't seem that popular, or I just didn't take it seriously. For me, I want more teaching and explaining that doesn't rely on insulting others, nor relies on other pictures to back yourself up. It's very frustrating when you can't see what someone is talking about because there doesn't seem to be solid evidence, but the other person is scoffing at you "how can you not see this, it's SO obvious!" I think there could be a joined effort in making VI a lot more approachable rather than looking like a pissing contest.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Where is that one ultimate picture that all other pictures can be compared to?

Eh, i'm not saying this to support VI or otherwise, but you can easily replace the word picture with the word function in your question.

One could maybe even substitue "functions" with VI and picture in your whole post.

I guess when it comes down to it, I don't care how smart something looks, just as long as it works.

Maybe the point of discussing socionics is to provide one with a mental work out! But like the last part of your post, discussing anything related socionics has also fallen prey to pissing contests.

[strrrng]

This post was taken from the end of the post "Similar forum members," in response to a discussion between Nick and Gilly... I added to it a bit here so that it stands by itself.

---

That temperament is as influential as it is in English-speaking Socionics--bc of various factors: MBTI's popularity in English-speaking countries, its emphasis on temperament, and Cartrette's old 16types info page, which emphasized sanguine, choleric, etc--is unfortunate.

I don't know what "temperament" you're referring to, but the ones described in those systems are simply different and wrong. MBTI separates people into NF, NT, SP and SJ, with the emphasis being on social roles, more or less. And old Greek psycho-bodily attitudes are hardly used anymore.

I wasted years mistyping myself in Socionics b/c Ej temperament descriptions portrayed someone I thought of as a bit too stiff, too mobile, too focused, etc, to be me. (e.g. I was comparing myself to a lot of the blabber-mouths I know--obvious Ejs--running around doing 300 things at once, and thinking to myself, "that's not me..." You know, some days I just want to chill in bed... These descriptions make Ejs sound like caffeinated robots... Or like my Te-ESTj Dad.)

Yeah, but that was due to your faulty conception of what constituted an EJ -- not the actual nature of the temperament itself. So, it's good you saw through the bullshit, but that doesn't mean that anyone else who references EJ is viewing it in that same faulty manner.

Perhaps the problem is not with temperament itself, but with the current descriptions..? Idk

Yeah, so what's there to criticize? Temperaments, in and of themselves, are fundamental psychological thresholds, energy levels, and general dispositions (i.e. Allie mentioned the "pace" of a person). The fact that some descriptions suck, doesn't mean people are suddenly placing too much emphasis on temperaments and getting things wrong.

Regardless:

"Temperament" can be influenced by a shitload of non-Socionics factors, e.g. depression, medication, motivation, disabilities, ADD, etc. It's also the probably easiest Socionics-related personality characteristic to fake/consciously control. (my friend goes quiet at parties just to get hos.)

How can it be influenced by that? Because a depressed person might seem like a lazy IP, or an ADHD person like an over-worked EJ? All those kinds of mistaken perceptions do, is facilitate the same stereotypes of temperaments you're condemning here. The fundamental aspects of temperament are pretty much set in stone, and no energy surge, mood shift or chemical imbalance can alter their core psychological structure.

For this reason, temperament can be an unreliable indicator of Socionics type.

The only reason it can be unreliable, as demonstrated, is through peoples' shitty interpretations. That doesn't change its intrinsic validity.

Subtypes do not explain temperament well either... E.g. one could be relatively quiet and still be a Fe-ENFj, (see: above Non-socionics factors,) or loud and still be a INTj. (I met a very communicative Ti-INTj the other day... He is a famous artist... He has lots of self-confidence and is quite talkative, forceful, etc... Not at all like the INTj stereotype of a somewhat shy, nerdy, math-whiz... Although maybe he is that in his free-time. Who knows?)

Sure. Temperament has nothing to do with such behavioral traits, and anyone who says so is wrong. I know my definition of temperament doesn't revolve around such things, and it has proven reliable thus far.

Temperament is still useful in Socionics' typing--albeit only slightly... At this point, way too much emphasis is placed on temperament in our community.

Maybe, maybe not. If the technique works, use it.

As regards typing, the functions are where it's at... The functions you notice ppl using... In my experience, you need to see and feel and know the functions for yourself (vs. just reading the descriptions of them) to accurately type people.

You can see and feel temperament, too; just gotta know how to look at it.

[Not A Communist Shill]

From what I can tell, JuJu doesn't really seem to be dogmatic and seems to be saying basically the same thing that you are in this post.

He is dogmatic towards VI though. He sees himself as the ultimate arbitrator on such matters - and I take issue with people saying statements like: "In fairness to JuJu, his VI'ing appears to be quite accurate." (Cyclops)...what does that mean? Does that mean that Cyclops also sees himself as good at VIing, while also not taking issue with JuJu's selfassuredness on his VI abilities? Does it mean that he notices that JuJu types people accurately through VI based on what the person's type actually turns out to be? (which is flawed, due to circular reasoning).

If others do not accept that JuJu is good at VIing, or at least do not see it as a highly satisfactory means of typing, how do we determine which is group is right? I would say that fore and foremost that people are typed based on pesonality traits - which can include using temperaments if used with caution.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

He is dogmatic towards VI though. He sees himself as the ultimate arbitrator on such matters - and I take issue with people saying statements like: "In fairness to JuJu, his VI'ing appears to be quite accurate." (Cyclops)...what does that mean? Does that mean that Cyclops also sees himself as good at VIing, while also not taking issue with JuJu's selfassuredness on his VI abilities? Does it mean that he notices that JuJu types people accurately through VI based on what the person's type actually turns out to be? (which is flawed, due to circular reasoning).

Don't know why you're asking Isha. What it means is what it says. Most people would agree that for instance DeAnte and Sirena are LSI and IEI by model A. These are two people that JuJu types as LSI and IEI respectively through VI. I'm not going to get into another discussion with you if something like this isn't simple enough for you to understand. My conclusion whether right or wrong: You are being overly stubborn over JuJu.

[Not A Communist Shill]

Don't know why you're asking Isha. What it means is what it says. Most people would agree that for instance DeAnte and Sirena are LSI and IEI by model A. These are two people that JuJu types as LSI and IEI respectively through VI. I'm not going to get into another discussion with you if something like this isn't simple enough for you to understand. My conclusion whether right or wrong: You are being overly stubborn over JuJu.

They were rhetorical questions, as my point ultimately was that JuJu is dogmatic about VI and yet criticises the forum for putting too much emphasis on the temperaments. I don't think I am being stubborn for pointing out Juju's dogmatism. It would be nice if could support his case against the temperaments in the same way he doesn't support his case in favour of VI.

[Not A Communist Shill]

Subterranean, it's possible that we've seen different information on the matter but I have only really perceived JuJu as confident in his own abilities rather than dogmatic.

I refer you to these two threads:
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...how-learn.html
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...-practice.html

I find it astonishing comparing the initial posts (and subsequent posts by JuJu) in those threads to the initial post in this thread.

[ArchonAlarion]

While I see where you come from, you hyperbolize the situation, and I feel like that diminishes the value of what people are striving for rather than wanting to find a common good. You're right, some dumb stereotyping on silly one instance only situations happen. Okay, now that we're past that, how can assure people know how to VI without knowing the functions? I feel like people wanting to VI from the beginning are learning this... caricature of Socionics, like they are learning the mask and not the brains behind it. What I find unsatisfying is that, so far, the majority of people explaining VI only teach or back up their assertions with OTHER pictures or by insulting other peoples' perception. Basically, where is that one ultimate picture that all other pictures can be compared to? There isn't any, you have to know the functions, experience them offline through correct typings, and then come back and practice VI. You can't jump straight to VI.

When I first came back, seeing people hollering over pictures really turned me off to the idea. I was a lot more comfortable with videos because at least you got how they spoke, moved, etc, and you can actually see functions being used live. But with a photo, there's this one static instance that may or may not match any other instance in this person's life! These were my first thoughts on VI when coming back, because when I was here before, VI didn't seem that popular, or I just didn't take it seriously. For me, I want more teaching and explaining that doesn't rely on insulting others, nor relies on other pictures to back yourself up. It's very frustrating when you can't see what someone is talking about because there doesn't seem to be solid evidence, but the other person is scoffing at you "how can you not see this, it's SO obvious!" I think there could be a joined effort in making VI a lot more approachable rather than looking like a pissing contest.

Yup you're right. This happens in many VI threads, but not all.

I believe my VIing is not perfect, but is improving. It feels as if my recognition of the types through VI has outpaced my ability to explain in detail what features I'm picking up on.

I also prefer video although they are not always available.

Also remember that VI is subjective. Everyone VI's. People who don't know Socionics VI. Thats how we judge people intuitively. So, its hard to bring something intuitive and instinctual into some sort of objective analysis.

I will try to increase my explanation and decrease my bickering in the future.

[strrrng]

They were rhetorical questions, as my point ultimately was that JuJu is dogmatic about VI and yet criticises the forum for putting too much emphasis on the temperaments. I don't think I am being stubborn for pointing out Juju's dogmatism. It would be nice if could support his case against the temperaments in the same way he doesn't support his case in favour of VI.

[Mattie]

I refer you to these two threads:
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...how-learn.html
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...-practice.html

I find it astonishing comparing the initial posts (and subsequent posts by JuJu) in those threads to the initial post in this thread.

I found both of these threads useful, and actually what I want more from JuJu. Look at the thread in it's entirety and you'll notice people responding favorably to the OP. It's obvious you have beef with JuJu, but really, you're grasping at straws here.

Yup you're right. This happens in many VI threads, but not all.

I believe my VIing is not perfect, but is improving. It feels as if my recognition of the types through VI has outpaced my ability to explain in detail what features I'm picking up on.

I also prefer video although they are not always available.

Also remember that VI is subjective. Everyone VI's. People who don't know Socionics VI. Thats how we judge people intuitively. So, its hard to bring something intuitive and instinctual into some sort of objective analysis.

I will try to increase my explanation and decrease my bickering in the future.

Thanks for this, I really do appreciate it I think sometimes we forget we all want to accomplish the same thing, so maybe we can all, collectively, turn to helping each other. VI is really interesting and I think I have a knack, but it's still improving as well. So onwards and upwards!

[jewels]

I have to agree with Glam here as well. It's off-putting when some people are like "I see a picture of you and now know how your personality functions." and expect everyone to take that 100%.

yeah, but sometimes you can actually VI correctly. Back when myspace was "in", a random girl emailed me and asked if I was ENFP (my profile was private, so it only showed a picture). I was sort of shocked she could tell, but she was right. I think she was a lesbian so didn't really talk to her much after that, but she said she was an INFJ and I could tell in her pic too. I've also picked out ISTPs in online dating pics, and they've confirmed they're ISTPs. I've been wrong too...usually they're actually ISFPs instead of ISTPs, or sometimes ESTJ, etc...

But I think there can be truth to VI in some cases. A lot depends on the photo and what is coming across. I'm sure I could post photos of me that wouldn't look ENFp at all. But other pictures would. So if it's a representative picture of that person's natural expression, I think there is a good chance VI can work.

[Not A Communist Shill]

I found both of these threads useful, and actually what I want more from JuJu. Look at the thread in it's entirety and you'll notice people responding favorably to the OP. It's obvious you have beef with JuJu, but really, you're grasping at straws here.

JuJu claims that "temperament can be misleading in Socionics" and criticises the forum for apparently placing too much emphasis on it...and yet JuJu strongly pushes the case for VI without justifying why...he also claimed that an individual can be 85-95% accurate with typing with VI (with no justification).

At least with the temperaments, you can refer to a definition of each temperament. VI in my view is far from having a satisfactory typing strategy. And so I object to JuJu stating that the temperaments can be misleading while holding VI in such high regard.

"Socionics VI, when done by a VI expert, (one without any agenda except to get the typing right,) can NEARLY ALWAYS help identify one’s leading function or quadra—and thus give great insight into one’s probable type." - apparently JuJu is a VI expert, at least according to JuJu. It's easy to say that an 'expert' is someone who gets things less wrong than other people...and if such an expert can criticise other people's typings if their VI typings don't correlate, and then obviously they must be right 85-95% of the time.

To test the validity of VI, you ultimately have to do it by comparing it to typings carried out by an analysis of a person's personality, perhaps partly aided by knowledge of the temperaments. I think it's fair to criticise use of the temperaments, but VI is built on the sand of typing by personality traits, and not the other way round.

[strrrng]

JuJu claims that "temperament can be misleading in Socionics" and criticises the forum for apparently placing too much emphasis on it...and yet JuJu strongly pushes the case for VI without justifying why...he also claimed that an individual can be 85-95% accurate with typing with VI (with no justification).

And what's funny, is that temperaments are directly manifest through VI. uh oh...

At least with the temperaments, you can refer to a definition of each temperament. VI in my view is far from having a satisfactory typing strategy. And so I object to JuJu stating that the temperaments can be misleading while holding VI in such high regard.

Right. It's the core definitions that allow intuitive/visual conceptions of things to blossom, and thus, VI occurs! You don't just *spot* functions by looking at a person; there is an intrinsic order to it all, something you have thought out beforehand as a guide to the visual assessment. So, for someone to say, people place too much emphasis on temperaments and get them wrong, is circular, because the *correct definition of them* still affects the much touted VI method.

"Socionics VI, when done by a VI expert, (one without any agenda except to get the typing right,) can NEARLY ALWAYS help identify one’s leading function or quadra—and thus give great insight into one’s probable type." - apparently JuJu is a VI expert, at least according to JuJu. It's easy to say that an 'expert' is someone who gets things less wrong than other people...and if such an expert can criticise other people's typings if their VI typings don't correlate, and then obviously they must be right 85-95% of the time.

Regarding the way VI works, I don't think you can often simply spot someone's leading function right away. Many people have looked at me and thought I was a static type, a Ti-ego type, etc. Why? Because I have a high Ti emphasis. The point is, salient functions don't = leading functions, because the order isn't some pyramidal group of 'looks' that portray that shit. And if you can find these oh-so-subtle things, as Justin allegedly claims, then temperament shouldn't be that fuckin hard to see. It's not about pedantic theoretical masturbation; correct application is what matters.

To test the validity of VI, you ultimately have to do it by comparing it to typings carried out by an analysis of a person's personality, perhaps partly aided by knowledge of the temperaments. I think it's fair to criticise use of the temperaments, but VI is built on the sand of typing by personality traits, and not the other way round.

yup

[JuJu]

I do think you're right sometimes, and wrong other times, and sometimes I can't even say which because I don't have any idea what the person's type actually is. at this point, I don't notice you being "correct" necessarily more often than other people.

first, I'm not even complaining, I was just pointing out something that I believe needed to be said... and apparently I'm not the only one here who had those thoughts.

1. You haven't been paying attention then.

2. I don't rely on VI as much as you ppl seem to think... I'm advocating it bc I think it can help ppl, who are adept at it, type correctly or at least come close.

3. I do think you're being close-minded and I think it's bc you don't know how to do it yet... re-read your own post

4. why you trippin son..?

5. temperament has tripped up a lot of ppl in finding their true types... this OP was about that concept... why the hell did you write what you did about VI..? (It was out of the blue, and kinda strange honestly.)

[JuJu]

no, you're just very confident, to the point of being arrogant and an insufferable know-it-all who isn't even always right.

lol, fine. that's why you're always asking people who are looking to be typed for a picture right? instead of asking for a good self-description, or something else that might be a better indicator of their sociotype than a photo?

I'm not, I described how I thought someone could possibly be "good" at VI. but I also said that VI shouldn't be a final indicator because building up knowledge of how the types may tend to VI is by using non-VI information in the first place.

I'm not. you were the one who was offended at my first post.

I've already said why I brought it up. I think it's ridiculous how you start a thread telling people temperaments are not reliable for typing, when you're simultaneously (seemingly) using nothing but pictures as some sort of reliable indicator for typing someone. it makes you look like you don't know what you're talking about.

did i ever say any of this crap aside from ask for a photo when typing ppl?? I told you, VI helps me type ppl... that's why i ask for a photo.

VI is not the be all, end all--and i've said that A LOT--but apparently, you have not been paying attention.

In other words, you've misunderstood me and are complaining of shit that does not mesh with the reality of the situation. (Not my fault, but yours.)

It's frustrating to read posts like the ones you've put up in this thread... It's like you've read three of my posts (in which I asked for photos) and missed the rest... And that, you have to admit, is not my fault at all.

to address your last point--and I have already written it, but bc i've liked you in the past, i will say it again--I don't care 'how I look' to you ppl... I'm not trying to impress any of you, lol... I care about getting the typings right... There are ppl who appreciate that, and those are the ppl I'm hoping to connect with... Not ppl who bitch and moan about what they do not understand.

[JuJu]

I know it's frustrating to be misinterpreted, so I'm sorry if I've overestimated the importance you put on VI. what I observed overall isn't totally consistent with what you're saying, but maybe this is because I've missed some posts of yours that would have given me a different view? and, you didn't even address this in your original response... all you said before was basically that VI works, that you find yourself to be better at it than most people, that I'm close-minded because I "can't do it", etc. you didn't even dispute that you put huge importance on it using only photos.

so really, what's the issue that started this again? that you find VI to be more reliable to type than using temperaments, and I didn't agree with this?

I have not been "bitching and moaning", first of all. quit acting like I'm throwing a tantrum and being unreasonable here, because I'm not. and I wasn't talking about you trying to impress people, but whatever.

honestly glam, it's cool w me if you don't agree w me about whatever... i understand that everyone's entitled to an opinion; however misinformed, misconstrued, etc.



it just sucks to read the shit you posted is all. you attributed methods and motivations to me, which are not real or true. (Thus misinforming others.)

also, to me, it felt like your posts were attacks that came out of the blue (I hadn't brought up VI, only temperaments,) and you addressed your complaint directly at me.

(I don't care if ppl like SubT do this, as I think their motivations are clear... It just bothered me in this situation bc this was YOU. I've always thought of you as open-minded and smart and nice.)

---

now i come to this forum bc I especially like helping ppl find their correct types. (This is b/c, as I've said numerous times, it took me literally YEARS to find my own...) I want to help ppl so they don't have to go through what I did, flirting with every half-assed Socionics-related bullshit theory (e.g. Steve's stuff, Ashton's, etc.)

Maybe I'm gullible--but looking back on it, it's obvious to me that some of these ppl were attempting to push agendas based on misunderstandings of Socionics for ego gratification. In retrospect, it makes me upset, b/c they truly wasted my time and confused me.

In other words, I'm genuine about helping ppl find their types, especially newcomers... (I've found it's tough to teach old dogs new tricks, e.g. Winterpark, DeAnte, etc.)

If you take time to ask people I've typed, and review what I've done here during these past few months, you will find that I'm being neither modest nor boastful in saying I am good at this.

I have honed methods that work quickly and accurately to type ppl, (at least to the correct quadra... But in many cases, to the correct type/subtype.) They involve functional analysis, VI, personality analysis, (yes) temperament, and sometimes other methods.

I posted this particular post b/c my experience using temperament hasn't been rosy--as re: my own self-typing, and some others'. (Mimosa's comes to mind... I hope she doesn't mind me saying so.)

I have explained these methods to a bunch of ppl in various venues--pms, emails, IMs, posts... I don't want to continue wasting my time explaining this stuff to ppl who missed it the first time. (As you can probably imagine, that's frustrating and time consuming. Currently I have 27 unanswered PMs.)

Frankly, it sucks to read that other ppl--in this case you--not only devalue what I'm doing to help, but feel the need to attack it, esp. in light of misunderstanding what I'm doing. It makes me feel bad

As I mentioned before, I do not pay much attention to others' axes to grind (SubT) or ego-boosting grand standing (ppl I consider good friends, even!) I see those for what they are.

I'm concerned that ppl seem to be believing misunderstandings, and gross over-simplifications of what I'm trying to do... I wish they'd take the time to research my posts/ask for themselves, rather than just attack.


---

All of this is compounded by the fact that I was pumping gas last night and had a gun pulled on me at 1:45am in New Haven... He stole all my money and told me he was gonna kill me... I was with the cops til very late in the night, and then came back and read the shit you and these other ppl posted.

Been a really fuckin long thankless day, with a lot of "fuck yous..." This other stuff is not your fault, obviously, but I'm helping you to try to understand where I'm coming from.

---

I'm doing my best here... And I believe in what I'm doing... I stand by it... Currently, I may be the only one here able to type in this quick, accurate way; however, I'm currently teaching some other forum members... I want it to be known that it takes A LOT of work. (I put A LOT of research and effort into this, Glam... More than I think most of you would believe.)

In other words, I can take punches--esp. if they're legitimate criticism, or critiques coming from a legitimate place. (I believe yours was the latter, and that's why I'm responding like this. I'm hoping to clear up misunderstandings.) I believe in this... And I stand by it... I would not stand by it if I didn't believe in it... (I don't stand by what I wrote on Socionics before Jan 1 009... Frankly, my understanding wasn't full until Feb or March... ANd my methods weren't honed until March or April.)


Obviously, a bunch of ppl are trippin now and I'm cautioning: don't jump to hasty, misinformed conclusions... Instead, ask a question or maybe research for yourself.

Thanks for reading this really long post.

[07490]

WOW.

[Not A Communist Shill]

And what's funny, is that temperaments are directly manifest through VI. uh oh...

A person's temperament can be discerned from an analysis of a person's behaviour - it does not have to be through VI at all. Also, JuJu was referring to VI galleries in his thread (i.e. photos presumably), and not videos, which are more useful, lol. To make observations about VI and type (such as "oh, they have a sparkle in their eyes"), you first have to know the types as defined by a description etc. - and the temperaments, far from being perfect, at least have a set definition (okay, there are many definitions...but VI descriptions cannot be better, as they ultimately defer to personality descriptions). And hence VI is built on the sand of personality descriptions (including the temperaments), lol.

[athenian200]

I would say that ANY one aspect can be misleading if you focus too much on it. You have to look at and weigh every aspect of type carefully, and then decide on a best fit based on the correlation between all the aspects. Also, you have to be open to revising your type as you learn new things about yourself, or find that old self-images were inaccurate.

Temperament is one thing that can be used to type, but it should never be used to rule out a type. It should simply be one factor among many.

Does that make sense?