A Scientific Method for Typing

[somavision]

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.

[munenori2]

NEVER!!!!

[krieger]

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

[Slacker]

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.

[Jarno]

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.

[Banana Pancakes]

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

[Slacker]

*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.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

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

[somavision]

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.

[MysticSonic]

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.

[1981slater]

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

[Slacker]

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.

[1981slater]

I'm pretty sure I would have been found to be Gamma by this method until my late 20s or so.

who knows?

[Cone]

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.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[1981slater]

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!

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Creepy-male]

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