Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Typing accuracy

  1. #1
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Typing accuracy

    What do you think is a maintainable accuracy level for typing in the following situations?

    - a quick glimpse of a person, barely able to register their facial and bodily features

    - 2 minutes of obseravation of the person at a distance

    - seeing the person for long periods of time (on television or in your surrounding world) but not having interacted

    - having interacted with the person for under 2 minutes

    - spending several weeks around the person with frequent instances of interaction

    - having heard the person's voice on telephone only

    - having the person described to you in words only

    Answer the question in terms of how many dichotomies you identify, or how many types you are undecided between.

  2. #2
    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

    I can accurately type most people in under 2 minutes of interaction usually; if it takes more than that, it will likely take a significant amount of interaction and observation to determine more accurately. Sometimes I can type someone just by seeing their face once. Some people I've known for years and I'm still not certain about their type. Just depends on the person, really.

  3. #3
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    8,337
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I can chose a typing for someone, and play on it a bit, but most of the time never come to a sure conclusion until I've really gotten to know the person and seen them interact in various environments. I don't think typing on hunches or interests, or things they have in common with me or others is accurate enough. It has to be based on the IMs and the larger picture, because I can easily get stuck in the details just like a lot of people here, you know, seeing insignificant surface details and trying to fit them into a category because they look like someone else.

  4. #4
    Darn Socks Director Abbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Southwest USA
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    6,724
    Mentioned
    237 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    - spending several weeks around the person with frequent instances of interaction

    This and a few backup questions for double-checking is the method I have used to type over a hundred people. All but a few totally agreed with what I typed them as. The few exceptions are still enigmas because I don't know them well.

    ESTj
    1w2 sp/so 1-2-6
    Brilliand's Younger Sister
    Squishy's Older Sister

    Johari Nohari

    Quote Originally Posted by Ritella View Post
    Over here, we'll put up with (almost) all of your crap. You just have to use the secret phrase: "I don't value it. It's related to <insert random element here>, which is not in my quadra."
    Quote Originally Posted by Aquagraph View Post
    Abbie is so boring and rigid it's awesome instead of boring and rigid. She seems so practical and down-to-the-ground.

  5. #5
    Breaking stereotypes Suz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    On a chatbox diet
    TIM
    IDK
    Posts
    6,470
    Mentioned
    169 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Director Abbie View Post
    - spending several weeks around the person with frequent instances of interaction

    This and a few backup questions for double-checking is the method I have used to type over a hundred people. All but a few totally agreed with what I typed them as. The few exceptions are still enigmas because I don't know them well.
    Which questions do you ask?
    Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx

  6. #6
    Darn Socks Director Abbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Southwest USA
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    6,724
    Mentioned
    237 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WorkaholicsAnon View Post
    Which questions do you ask?
    Dichotomy questions. I have a list of the original eight for people I don't know well. I can usually quickly determine thinking/feeling and extrovert/introvert. "Do you think of things from lots of different angles?" is a good question for determining static vs. dynamic. It's usually a question of two or three types that are plausible. Most recently, I've been able to hand a person I've known for a while a description of the type I think they are and have them say, "Yes; this is me." With only sixteen types to choose from, it's pretty easy to type someone in person.

    ESTj
    1w2 sp/so 1-2-6
    Brilliand's Younger Sister
    Squishy's Older Sister

    Johari Nohari

    Quote Originally Posted by Ritella View Post
    Over here, we'll put up with (almost) all of your crap. You just have to use the secret phrase: "I don't value it. It's related to <insert random element here>, which is not in my quadra."
    Quote Originally Posted by Aquagraph View Post
    Abbie is so boring and rigid it's awesome instead of boring and rigid. She seems so practical and down-to-the-ground.

  7. #7
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,375
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    - a quick glimpse of a person, barely able to register their facial and bodily features.
    1%

    - 2 minutes of obseravation of the person at a distance
    3%

    - seeing the person for long periods of time (on television or in your surrounding world) but not having interacted
    80%

    - having interacted with the person for under 2 minutes
    20%

    - spending several weeks around the person with frequent instances of interaction
    90%

    - having heard the person's voice on telephone only
    5%

    - having the person described to you in words only
    35%


    % of times when I can say with certainty which type the person is.

  8. #8
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,375
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    It seems many people don't seem bothered by how reliable some typing situations are to them. That might explain why they aren't bothered with accuracy in general.

  9. #9
    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

    Some people are better at typing under different circumstances. For example I'm better at typing someone before I get to know them; once I have an opinion of my own of the person beyond an initial vibe, sometimes I'm "too close" to the situation to really type accurately.

  10. #10
    yeves's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    TIM
    Si 6 spsx
    Posts
    1,259
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lecter View Post
    having heard the person's voice on telephone only
    is this hearing the tone of their voice only or having one phone conversation with the person?

  11. #11
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Berlin
    TIM
    LSI 5w6 sx/so
    Posts
    5,421
    Mentioned
    144 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    What do you think is a maintainable accuracy level for typing in the following situations?

    - a quick glimpse of a person, barely able to register their facial and bodily features
    30% (at least as far as I'm concerned, not bad at snapshots)

    - 2 minutes of observation of the person at a distance
    30-40% (if they're doing something/talking and that gives me extra material to draw upon)

    - seeing the person for long periods of time (on television or in your surrounding world) but not having interacted
    50-75%

    - having interacted with the person for under 2 minutes
    < 50 %

    - spending several weeks around the person with frequent instances of interaction
    80-100%

    - having heard the person's voice on telephone only
    15-30 % (T vs F can be easy to tell apart, also Fi vs Fe and Te vs Ti if you get into details ...provided that the conversation had some substantial content and I didn't hear only formulaic stuff + their voice modulations for max.3 min.)

    - having the person described to you in words only
    I don't give much credit to second-hand descriptions, they can be contaminated by unavoidable bias ... it's like I have 2 or more brain filters to chew on and solve ... but let's say about 20-40%

    Answer the question in terms of how many dichotomies you identify, or how many types you are undecided between.
    Last edited by Amber; 12-01-2014 at 10:46 PM.

Posting Permissions

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