Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: The problem of typing

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default The problem of typing

    For me, it seems impossible to be certain of a person's type when they themselves are uncertain of it. If they put forward the suggestion that they may be one type or another, then I can affirm that, but if they themselves are uncertain then the typing can only be tenuous.

    Political type theory is so much easier. A person's projections betray their nature right from the get-go.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    18,006
    Mentioned
    162 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    That means ?

  3. #3
    Hello...? somavision's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,474
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think I understand your meaning.

    If someone has the necessary self knowledge to act in an authentic manner then they would in turn have the necessary self awareness to be able to choose their type correctly?

    I think that there are occasions where this would be a useful mantra. However an with a lack of self awareness or curiousity in self could convince themselves that they are a type that they are not, so in this sense I disagree.
    IEE-Ne

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    18,006
    Mentioned
    162 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by somavision View Post
    I think I understand your meaning.
    What does it have to do with politics ?

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

    Default

    Self-typings are the only thing worth a damn in socionics. People should stop trying to "type" people and instead help people find their type. The amount of information people have available about themselves so far outclasses the amount a random external observer has that the latter can never override the former.

  6. #6
    Creepy-bg

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post
    Self-typings are the only thing worth a damn in socionics. People should stop trying to "type" people and instead help people find their type. The amount of information people have available about themselves so far outclasses the amount a random external observer has that the latter can never override the former.

  7. #7
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,757
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post
    Self-typings are the only thing worth a damn in socionics. People should stop trying to "type" people and instead help people find their type. The amount of information people have available about themselves so far outclasses the amount a random external observer has that the latter can never override the former.
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

  8. #8
    Landlord of the Dog and Duck Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    EII-Ne Sp/So
    Posts
    14,937
    Mentioned
    243 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    It has been shown to be the case with studies that individuals are better able to determine their personality type consistently than "professionals" can.

  9. #9
    Azeroffs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    California
    TIM
    ENTj 3w4 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,216
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post
    Self-typings are the only thing worth a damn in socionics. People should stop trying to "type" people and instead help people find their type. The amount of information people have available about themselves so far outclasses the amount a random external observer has that the latter can never override the former.
    Especially online. How can anyone come to any kind of certainty about a type of someone they haven't met? You can't see their mannerisms or how they interact. You can't hear their tones of voice. All you have is some hallow shell of communication (text), and you really think you can come to some kind of definite typing? I agree with tcaud that all you can really go by is what the person gives you, which if they don't know themselves very well becomes a problem. I don't understand these fights where people are trying to convince others of a typing which they are completely opposed to. Who are you to say you know someone better than they know themselves over the internet? Jesus people.
    3w4-5w6-9w8

  10. #10
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,757
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subterranean View Post
    It has been shown to be the case with studies that individuals are better able to determine their personality type consistently than "professionals" can.
    sauce please?
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

  11. #11
    <something> Wynch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    On a Hill
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    3,910
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post
    Self-typings are the only thing worth a damn in socionics. People should stop trying to "type" people and instead help people find their type. The amount of information people have available about themselves so far outclasses the amount a random external observer has that the latter can never override the former.
    Quote Originally Posted by Azeroffs View Post
    Especially online. How can anyone come to any kind of certainty about a type of someone they haven't met? You can't see their mannerisms or how they interact. You can't hear their tones of voice. All you have is some hallow shell of communication (text), and you really think you can come to some kind of definite typing? I agree with tcaud that all you can really go by is what the person gives you, which if they don't know themselves very well becomes a problem. I don't understand these fights where people are trying to convince others of a typing which they are completely opposed to. Who are you to say you know someone better than they know themselves over the internet? Jesus people.
    I completely agree with both of these comments. I think the only time to question someone's self-typing comes when they demonstrate a lack of understanding of socionics, not because of a lack of understanding about themselves. This is why I generally stay away from typing people and stick to discussing theory. It probably more helpful to people to flip through threads discussing theory than it is having a thread where 20 people argue about their type.
    ILE
    7w8 so/sp

    Very busy with work. Only kind of around.

  12. #12
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,757
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mn0good View Post
    I completely agree with both of these comments. I think the only time to question someone's self-typing comes when they demonstrate a lack of understanding of socionics, not because of a lack of understanding about themselves.
    What about me? :wink:
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

  13. #13
    Landlord of the Dog and Duck Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    EII-Ne Sp/So
    Posts
    14,937
    Mentioned
    243 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilly View Post
    sauce please?
    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel Nettle in Personality: What Makes You The Way You Are
    [...]People's scores are really rather stable over long periods of time. In one study, people took a personality questionnaire on three occasions six years apart. The final scores (twelve years on from the beginning of ths study) correlated with the initial ones with r values of 0.68-0.85. This is extremely high. In fact, it is pretty much the same r value you get if people take the test twice with a time interval of six days. It shows that variation due to quirks is quite limited, and that once you take this into account, the underlying scores are as constant over a decade as they are over a week. People's scores when rating themselves correlate quite well with how others close to them see them, as long as those others know them reasonably well. When strangers rate a target person's personality, there is essentially no consensus between them, but the better they know the target, the greater the consensus. Correlation between ratings from the targets themselves and ratings from those that know them well are typically around 0.59.
    9. Stability of ratings over time: the longitudinal study is Costa, McCrae, and Arenberg 1980. See also McCrae and Costa 2003. On consensus between raters, see Kenrick and Funder 1988.
    Costa, P. T. and McCrae, R. R. (1980). Influence of extraversion and neuroticism on subjective well-being: Happy and unhappy people. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38: 668-78.
    Kendrick, D. T. and Funder, D. C. (1988) Profiting from controversy: Lessions from the person-situation debate. American Psychologist, 43: 23-34.
    McCrae, R. R. and Costa, P. T. (2003) Personality in Adulthood: A Five-Factor Theory Perspective, 2nd edn. (New York: Guildford Press).
    .

Posting Permissions

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