Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: A Scientific Method for Typing

  1. #1
    Hello...? somavision's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,474
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default A Scientific Method for Typing

    Well I was thinking and I'd thought I'd suggest a method for the logical typing of individuals

    It seems to me that if someone is typing someone else online and they are cherry picking quotes, it could be perceived that there is an agenda, even if the intentions are in impartial. From my understanding, to show that you are reasoning impartially is one of the cornerstones of scientific theory.

    To remedy this I propose that those who wish to state that they are arguing logically or impartially should use a method to demonstrate this. This would add a respectability to their conclusions.

    As I have already mentioned cherry picking data is the main culprit and those that do this cannot legitamately claim to be acting logically. They certainly cannot expect to be perceived as such.

    I propose that those who type in the name of reason either follow the method proposed below (Being methodical is not a great strength of mine so what follows may well be flawed) or propose a superior method.

    1. randomly select a reasonable quantity of data over a period of time
    (this can be achieved by randomly selecting a page and post number and selecting this from the individuals posting history)

    The starting posts to threads should be given greater weight as they tend to concern what the individual is genuinely like and interested in.

    The selection should form a good spread over a reasonable period of time as under stress etc. the subjects behaviour may alter substantially. If the period of time looked at is too small these unnatural behaviours could have a significant impact on the typing of that individual.

    Even so, prolonged periods of stress or confusion can take place and even with a spread of posts over the entire span of the subjects posting history could be effected. This should be taken into consideration.

    2. Initially only these posts should be used as evidence and they should either be

    (i) analysed by a small group of mutually respected typists

    or

    (ii) placed in the public domain

    3. The individual posts should be analysed as a whole for general themes, as well as specific words and sentences. If the posts are placed chronologically a general pattern of behaviour should emerge, if there are inconsistencies the subject should be asked about this.

    4. It should be assumed that the subject knows more about themselves than the other typists involved. If in doubt ask the subject.

    5. As with all scientific experiments ethical matters need to be taken into consideration.

    (i) No such thread should be started without the subjects permission.
    Or more preferably their instigation.

    (ii) The subject should reserve the right to request the matter be closed at any time

    (iii) no one should have a type imposed upon them by the forum. This should only be used as an impartial tool to help an individual find his or her type. For many people their type is central to how they perceive themselves. If the analysis does not persuade or convince the subject, the matter should be closed even if the consensus is that there is a mistyping.

    6. All animals are created equal.

    Anyway that is my suggestion, I would be happy to have any of my points discussed, expanded or corrected.

  2. #2
    Snomunegot munenori2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Kansas
    TIM
    Introvert sp/sx
    Posts
    7,739
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    NEVER!!!!

    Moonlight will fall
    Winter will end
    Harvest will come
    Your heart will mend

  3. #3
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    To test socionics scientifically, there would have to be a way to demonstrate compatibility between people under experimental conditions. This is the main difficulty.

  4. #4
    aka Slacker Slacker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    North Korea
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    8,819
    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Too bad you can't plug a code reader into us, like into a car, that would just spit out all that info. That would be really handy.
    It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.
    -Mark Twain


    You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.

  5. #5
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,375
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Consider typing a same sort of test as finding a personality disorder.

    Then the most obvious scientific method is a standardized (multiple choice) test.

    by the way.

    MBTI claims that there tests are 75% accurate. Meaning: afterwards the person is being examined and interviewed by a couple of psychologists, and in 25% of the cases they come up with an other type for that person. not necesseraly the right type(!)

    75% might not seem much, though it's pretty accurate. But since it's mbti, socionics could improve it since it's a more accurate theorie.

  6. #6
    Pretend like it's the weekend Banana Pancakes's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    your backyard
    Posts
    798
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Slacker Mom View Post
    Too bad you can't plug a code reader into us, like into a car, that would just spit out all that info. That would be really handy.
    *ponders joke about plugging in his "code reader"*

    Too bad my Fi ego won't let me say it
    ILE-Ti
    6w7 sx/sp (low level of confidence)

  7. #7
    aka Slacker Slacker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    North Korea
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    8,819
    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Banana Pancakes View Post
    *ponders joke about plugging in his "code reader"*

    Too bad my Fi ego won't let me say it
    I wondered if anyone would say anything like that. I was guessing, "Just where would it be plugged in?" or something like that.
    It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.
    -Mark Twain


    You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.

  8. #8
    Haikus
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    MI
    TIM
    IEI-Ni
    Posts
    10,060
    Mentioned
    223 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    I get perceived by others, usually people not in my quadra, that I am playing the victim. Actually this isn't really what I'm doing at all, and I get annoyed/offended that they think this about me. I am simply expressing myself. I can't even explain how I had a bad day sometimes without people going 'you are playing the victim.' It's quite silly, as I'm doing no such thing. I am just ....making conversation and being myself. I have to be really overly self-critical and not 'myself' when in communication with some people. Or like when it appears that I am 'down about myself' it's actually not true, it's just my method of relating. I think this annoys people because it's like, from their perspective, I'm trying to garner sympathy actually and that is soooo not my intentions.

    I noticed Deltas especially do this with me. It makes me so angry, they will want to create this 'humanistic' atmosphere where everybody shares. So when I explain my feelings to them, then they dismiss it as 'oh you're playing the victim.' It's so bizarre to me. If you didn't want me to share, why are you saying that you care about people and you are compassionate and Jesus-like or whatever, I can't test you to your own standards? You can't live up to the challenge? It's like all their preachy standards about being good to people is just hot air, when I'm in actual pain they can do nothing but try and make me feel worse. If you don't want people to open up to you then stop feigning empathy. I'm not a mind reader, if somebody claims they are a good, understanding person I try to give them a benefit of the doubt and open up. I think people read people being 'emo' when there really isn't, and it's just frustrating how un-equipped they are in dealing with people's emotions. =D

  9. #9
    Hello...? somavision's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,474
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarno View Post
    Consider typing a same sort of test as finding a personality disorder.

    Then the most obvious scientific method is a standardized (multiple choice) test.

    by the way.

    MBTI claims that there tests are 75% accurate. Meaning: afterwards the person is being examined and interviewed by a couple of psychologists, and in 25% of the cases they come up with an other type for that person. not necesseraly the right type(!)

    75% might not seem much, though it's pretty accurate. But since it's mbti, socionics could improve it since it's a more accurate theorie.
    Very true.

  10. #10
    MysticSonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,993
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarno View Post
    Consider typing a same sort of test as finding a personality disorder.

    Then the most obvious scientific method is a standardized (multiple choice) test.

    by the way.

    MBTI claims that there tests are 75% accurate. Meaning: afterwards the person is being examined and interviewed by a couple of psychologists, and in 25% of the cases they come up with an other type for that person. not necesseraly the right type(!)

    75% might not seem much, though it's pretty accurate. But since it's mbti, socionics could improve it since it's a more accurate theorie.
    The whole issue with this as evidence towards these standardized testings being accurate is that it is really impossible to know precisely how these practitioner are guiding these people towards their finalized typing. It wouldn't surprise me if there was a great deal of confirmation-bias within their practices, motivated by the practitioner's desire to validate the "science" of MBTI to the loyally paying customer.
    "To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"

    "Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."

  11. #11
    ILE - ENTp 1981slater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Spain
    TIM
    ILE (ENTp)
    Posts
    4,866
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    My scientific method for typing:

    1) What's the job of the subject? (It usually matches his Socionics type)

    2) Write down the types of the friends, former girlfriends, etc of the subject: if most of them are SEI, the subject is ILE, for instance
    ILE "Searcher"
    Socionics: ENTp
    DCNH: Dominant --> perhaps Normalizing
    Enneagram: 7w6 "Enthusiast"
    MBTI: ENTJ "Field Marshall" or ENTP "Inventor"
    Astrological sign: Aquarius

    To learn, read. To know, write. To master, teach.

  12. #12
    aka Slacker Slacker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    North Korea
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    8,819
    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 1981slater View Post
    My scientific method for typing:

    1) What's the job of the subject? (It usually matches his Socionics type)

    2) Write down the types of the friends, former girlfriends, etc of the subject: if most of them are SEI, the subject is ILE, for instance
    I'm pretty sure I would have been found to be Gamma by this method until my late 20s or so.
    It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.
    -Mark Twain


    You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.

  13. #13
    ILE - ENTp 1981slater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Spain
    TIM
    ILE (ENTp)
    Posts
    4,866
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Slacker Mom View Post
    I'm pretty sure I would have been found to be Gamma by this method until my late 20s or so.
    who knows?
    ILE "Searcher"
    Socionics: ENTp
    DCNH: Dominant --> perhaps Normalizing
    Enneagram: 7w6 "Enthusiast"
    MBTI: ENTJ "Field Marshall" or ENTP "Inventor"
    Astrological sign: Aquarius

    To learn, read. To know, write. To master, teach.

  14. #14
    Cone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    2,717
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MysticSonic View Post
    The whole issue with this as evidence towards these standardized testings being accurate is that it is really impossible to know precisely how these practitioner are guiding these people towards their finalized typing. It wouldn't surprise me if there was a great deal of confirmation-bias within their practices, motivated by the practitioner's desire to validate the "science" of MBTI to the loyally paying customer.
    Yes, and also, 75% consistency in test results shows just that and only that: consistency. Of course, personality tests should be judged by their consistency of results, for personality is canonically defined as a set of unchanging traits over time. However, there's the huge question of whether or not the theory does nothing more than describe these traits and how many of these traits it describes. Where's the prediction? At least in Socionics you can type multiple people based on description and then try to predict how their intertype relations will play out. So, like any good theory, Socionics should be able to describe as much as possible about personality and also be able to predict the rest of the theory from taking a subset of that description and deriving the rest. I don't see how MBTI has that at all.
    Binary or dichotomous systems, although regulated by a principle, are among the most artificial arrangements that have ever been invented. -- William Swainson, A Treatise on the Geography and Classification of Animals (1835)

  15. #15
    Creepy-Diana

    Default

    .

  16. #16
    ILE - ENTp 1981slater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Spain
    TIM
    ILE (ENTp)
    Posts
    4,866
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Diana View Post
    heh. Not sure this works. What type is someone who has done landscaping, sided houses, worked in a library, was a wildlife biologist, and is a pilot, and whose closest friends over the years have been mostly IEIs, with other close friends being ILE, SLE, SEI and EII?
    it's a mix of Thomas Edison and McGyver!
    ILE "Searcher"
    Socionics: ENTp
    DCNH: Dominant --> perhaps Normalizing
    Enneagram: 7w6 "Enthusiast"
    MBTI: ENTJ "Field Marshall" or ENTP "Inventor"
    Astrological sign: Aquarius

    To learn, read. To know, write. To master, teach.

  17. #17
    Creepy-Diana

    Default

    .

  18. #18
    Creepy-male

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by somavision View Post
    Well I was thinking and I'd thought I'd suggest a method for the logical typing of individuals

    It seems to me that if someone is typing someone else online and they are cherry picking quotes, it could be perceived that there is an agenda, even if the intentions are in impartial. From my understanding, to show that you are reasoning impartially is one of the cornerstones of scientific theory.

    To remedy this I propose that those who wish to state that they are arguing logically or impartially should use a method to demonstrate this. This would add a respectability to their conclusions.

    As I have already mentioned cherry picking data is the main culprit and those that do this cannot legitamately claim to be acting logically. They certainly cannot expect to be perceived as such.

    I propose that those who type in the name of reason either follow the method proposed below (Being methodical is not a great strength of mine so what follows may well be flawed) or propose a superior method.

    1. randomly select a reasonable quantity of data over a period of time
    (this can be achieved by randomly selecting a page and post number and selecting this from the individuals posting history)

    The starting posts to threads should be given greater weight as they tend to concern what the individual is genuinely like and interested in.

    The selection should form a good spread over a reasonable period of time as under stress etc. the subjects behaviour may alter substantially. If the period of time looked at is too small these unnatural behaviours could have a significant impact on the typing of that individual.

    Even so, prolonged periods of stress or confusion can take place and even with a spread of posts over the entire span of the subjects posting history could be effected. This should be taken into consideration.

    2. Initially only these posts should be used as evidence and they should either be

    (i) analysed by a small group of mutually respected typists

    or

    (ii) placed in the public domain

    3. The individual posts should be analysed as a whole for general themes, as well as specific words and sentences. If the posts are placed chronologically a general pattern of behaviour should emerge, if there are inconsistencies the subject should be asked about this.

    4. It should be assumed that the subject knows more about themselves than the other typists involved. If in doubt ask the subject.

    5. As with all scientific experiments ethical matters need to be taken into consideration.

    (i) No such thread should be started without the subjects permission.
    Or more preferably their instigation.

    (ii) The subject should reserve the right to request the matter be closed at any time

    (iii) no one should have a type imposed upon them by the forum. This should only be used as an impartial tool to help an individual find his or her type. For many people their type is central to how they perceive themselves. If the analysis does not persuade or convince the subject, the matter should be closed even if the consensus is that there is a mistyping.

    6. All animals are created equal.

    Anyway that is my suggestion, I would be happy to have any of my points discussed, expanded or corrected.
    lol I am weird.... I love methods

    I'll have a look at this when I have the time to rummage through what you've written here

Posting Permissions

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