Sensors are screwed?

[Rubicon]

When it comes to typing people - how can sensors have much of a hope of being accurate.. being that they're most likely typing from superficial behaviours/words, which are all too often sullied by a person's experiences etc? Perhaps we sensors should vacate the area, and leave the intuitives to do the dirty work?

[Beautiful sky]

Look at the words that the person uses. Make a formula of each type's language.

[Rubicon]

Look at the words that the person uses. Make a formula of each type's language.

That would work in terms of developing my own model :-p .. but not really with socionics, being that in learning, I have to start with the type/function descriptions etc which are full of flaws, contradictions and generalisations.

[Rubicon]

I guess intuitives would have the same problem in starting out though. lol

[Aiss]

When it comes to typing people - how can sensors have much of a hope of being accurate.. being that they're most likely typing from superficial behaviours/words, which are all too often sullied by a person's experiences etc? Perhaps we sensors should vacate the area, and leave the intuitives to do the dirty work?

I'm not sure I agree with association of S with perceiving only superficial behaviours/words. There's F/T to consider, too.

[Satan]

When it comes to typing people - how can sensors have much of a hope of being accurate.. being that they're most likely typing from superficial behaviours/words, which are all too often sullied by a person's experiences etc? Perhaps we sensors should vacate the area, and leave the intuitives to do the dirty work?

it's actually the intuitives that are superficial. it's cos they get "ideas" that are removed from reality.

[Rubicon]

I'm not sure I agree with association of S with perceiving only superficial behaviours/words. There's F/T to consider, too.

Yeah Idk.. well I guess I should just speak for myself. :-p In noticing patterns between people right away, I can only use their external behaviour and their words. I don't start to develop a 'feel' for someone's type until I've spent a fair bit of time with them. Like right now, you're just a conglomeration of words to me, because I'm not that familiar with your posts. And what do I do with a big pile of words? Words are cheap. :-p People I'm more familiar with on the forum have certain feelings to me - like Mercutio has a feeling :-p.. and I kinda trust those when it comes to putting them into categories, but until then I'm !@##ed basically. :-p I wonder how intuitives feel in going about typing people?

[Rubicon]

it's actually the intuitives that are superficial. it's cos they get "ideas" that are removed from reality.

What's more sacred about reality though? It only serves to show where a person is at right now - where a person's experiences have taken them.

[Aiss]

Yeah Idk.. well I guess I should just speak for myself. :-p In noticing patterns between people right away, I can only use their external behaviour and their words. I don't start to develop a 'feel' for someone's type until I've spent a fair bit of time with them. Like right now, you're just a conglomeration of words to me, because I'm not that familiar with your posts. People I'm more familiar with on the forum have certain feelings to me - like Mercutio has a feeling :-p.. and I kinda trust those when it comes to putting them into categories, but until then I'm !@##ed basically. :-p I wonder how intuitives feel in going about typing people?

I don't see letters floating above people's head, if that is what you meant.

I think it's more the case of being confident or not. I see some people here claiming to have seen a person once in their life and knowing their type. Sure.

I sometimes get a feeling of a person's type very early on, but I don't consider it a typing until there's some evidence.

[Trevor]

More like: intuitives are screwed.

[Rubicon]

I don't see letters floating above people's head, if that is what you meant.

I think it's more the case of being confident or not. I see some people here claiming to have seen a person once in their life and knowing their type. Sure.

I sometimes get a feeling of a person's type very early on, but I don't consider it a typing until there's some evidence.

What generally constitutes evidence for you? Do you take people's self-descriptions on here seriously?

[Rubicon]

More like: intuitives are screwed.

not LIIs though (excepting Real Life ones)

[Aiss]

What generally constitutes evidence for you? Do you take people's self-descriptions on here seriously?

I suppose my point is, once you get to know the person you realize if what you observe is a pattern or an individual occurrence. If we're talking about being absolutely certain, then I'm not, because I don't believe there's absolute certainty.

There's no way to verify how accurate self-descriptions are, unless there are out of sync with other things that person is saying. Then there's a way of saying it. So in online typing you're relying on what the other person let's you know, more or less. I rather think it's better to help the people type themselves rather than tell them what they are, but it seems some want the latter.

not LIIs though

I have no evidence to support this claim, but I think LIIs might not be very good at typing irl, based on how they "judge" people - try very hard not to judge but do it anyway.

[Rubicon]

I suppose my point is, once you get to know the person you realize if what you observe is a pattern or an individual occurrence. If we're talking about being absolutely certain, then I'm not, because I don't believe there's absolute certainty.

There's no way to verify how accurate self-descriptions are, unless there are out of sync with other things that person is saying. Then there's a way of saying it. So in online typing you're relying on what the other person let's you know, more or less. I rather think it's better to help the people type themselves rather than tell them what they are, but it seems some want the latter.

Ah well.. I guess I'm not as far behind (in terms of my typing skills) as I thought I was. :-p Yours seems like a sensible approach.

I have no evidence to support this claim, but I think LIIs might not be very good at typing irl, based on how they "judge" people - try very hard not to judge but do it anyway.

What happened to your edit? You interpreted me correctly in your edit. lol Interesting what you say though. I've noticed that with LIIs myself. I've seen some be overly harsh in judging people, only to completely abandon their judgement when the person acts friendly towards them or something..

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Mattie]

Just because you're a certain type doesn't mean you only have access to certain bits of information. I don't think the / types are really limited to "experiences" and "the physical." I think before Socionics or MBTI, any / type here would be confident that they could create a hypothetical or pick up certain hints. As well, I'm sure there are / egos that base their tying on superficial quality... I'd find it more convincing if you said something along the lines of / leads are less likely to type successfully because they spend less time paying attention to information that would help the most in typing.

[The Exception]

When it comes to typing people - how can sensors have much of a hope of being accurate.. being that they're most likely typing from superficial behaviours/words, which are all too often sullied by a person's experiences etc? Perhaps we sensors should vacate the area, and leave the intuitives to do the dirty work?

I dunno about this. Sensors, particularly seem way more attuned to body language which is important for typing.

[Nowisthetime]

When it comes to typing people - how can sensors have much of a hope of being accurate.. being that they're most likely typing from superficial behaviours/words,

Where did you get this idea from that sensors type from superficial behaviours? I don't agree with this.
Maybe you've got a superficial idea of what sensing means.

EDIT:
When I type someone I take in the impression of the whole person. And compare with people I've met before. It's not related to specific details. Although they sometimes can give help.

[Jarno]

Most naturally attuned to typing people are ENFJ. (though they often lose their talent when learning to much about socionics)

I know a sensor guy (ISTP) at my former job who was always quicker with a correct judgement about a person.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Creepy-Cyclops]

When it comes to typing people - how can sensors have much of a hope of being accurate.. being that they're most likely typing from superficial behaviours/words, which are all too often sullied by a person's experiences etc? Perhaps we sensors should vacate the area, and leave the intuitives to do the dirty work?

imo... you need to develop a form of typing suited to your ego. I've found most of the font of (knowledge?, eh, humphry the magician, aka Piers Anthony speak of that particular person with that of Xanth talent), well not like him cause he is apparently smart, well, digress, where was I, yeah, an etc... um, yeah the fonts an all, to be actually Ni influenced (eg wiki, which may come from Expat and/or others). There's also examples of these and Ne ego's going awry, so....

[Suz]

it's actually the intuitives that are superficial. it's cos they get "ideas" that are removed from reality.

Actually, I agree with Merk on this!

I think body language does say a lot about type, and sensors pick up on that MUCH better than intuitives. The body language doesn't lie.

Also, the topics one chooses to discuss also are suggestive of type, imo. At least what functions one values.

I dont think the ability to type people is handicapped by any one particular type or function. It's a matter of having the knowledge, picking up enough clues in whichever manner comes easiest, and being able to apply all that information to extrapolate a type.

Of course that said, in many cases as we all know, type can be a tentative, uncertain realm. In those cases it helps to have multiple different perspectives weighing in from people of different types (and discussion!).

[Suz]

imo... you need to develop a form of typing suited to your ego. I've found most of the font of (knowledge?, eh, humphry the magician, aka Piers Anthony speak of that particular person with that of Xanth talent), well not like him cause he is apparently smart, well, digress, where was I, yeah, an etc... um, yeah the fonts an all, to be actually Ni influenced (eg wiki, which may come from Expat and/or others). There's also examples of these and Ne ego's going awry, so....

oh and apparently i agree with you too.

LOL re: the tangent. . .

[DividedsGhost]

When it comes to typing people - how can sensors have much of a hope of being accurate.. being that they're most likely typing from superficial behaviours/words, which are all too often sullied by a person's experiences etc? Perhaps we sensors should vacate the area, and leave the intuitives to do the dirty work?

All I know is, if the assumption that sensors can't type very well becomes accepted and they leave it to the intuitives to come up with all the ideas and not give input in forming a system - that system will be bias against sensors and will probably get it wrong with sensors as well. Isn't there some kind of saying here? I think it's something like "If you don't speak up, no one will hear you and people will decide of you what will suit them."

Or in other words, intuitives aren't psychic so speak up and correct what is inaccurate or wrong.

Please trust me.

[discojoe]

When it comes to typing people - how can sensors have much of a hope of being accurate.. being that they're most likely typing from superficial behaviours/words, which are all too often sullied by a person's experiences etc? Perhaps we sensors should vacate the area, and leave the intuitives to do the dirty work?

I find that there is no correlation between S, N, and typing proficiency.

niffweed is the most "N" person in the universe and his typings are wrong like 50% of the time. My own typings are wrong about that much as well.

ALL IN ALL HAVE FUN AND REMEMBER TO NOT REPORT ANYTHING. I MIGHT GET IN TROUBLE.

[UDP]

When it comes to typing people - how can sensors have much of a hope of being accurate.. being that they're most likely typing from superficial behaviours/words, which are all too often sullied by a person's experiences etc? Perhaps we sensors should vacate the area, and leave the intuitives to do the dirty work?

It doesn't matter if your S or N, noobs of all types do that.


For myself, over time, it's become more about how someone 'feels' when I interact with them, what Fe dominance feels like, FeSi ego vs FeNi ego, alpha nature, beta nature, etc.

What unvalued Se feels like, etc. Specific parts and elements of whole things. They all 'feel' certain ways in relation to me, some things more psychologically appealing than others.

Alphas feel comfortable but not very productive, etc. They are good for chilling out but not quite as much for actually 'doing something'.


It's subjective and dependent on your type, and it does take time to accurately associate stimulous with terminology, but, it works.

[Exodus]

I find that there is no correlation between S, N, and typing proficiency.

niffweed is the most "N" person in the universe and his typings are wrong like 50% of the time. My own typings are wrong about that much as well.

ALL IN ALL HAVE FUN AND REMEMBER TO NOT REPORT ANYTHING. I MIGHT GET IN TROUBLE.

True that.

Typing is really more about ethics, anyway. The "underlying traits" that intuition has to do with are generally more abstract/impersonal than socionic traits. I think generally types have the biggest natural advantage in typing people.

In any case, the most important factors in typing accuracy are being smart + having REAL LIFE EXPERIENCE.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[krieger]

Don't say sensors type worse than intutives!

That's typism!

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Satan]

Yeah Idk.. well I guess I should just speak for myself. :-p In noticing patterns between people right away, I can only use their external behaviour and their words. I don't start to develop a 'feel' for someone's type until I've spent a fair bit of time with them. Like right now, you're just a conglomeration of words to me, because I'm not that familiar with your posts. And what do I do with a big pile of words? Words are cheap. :-p People I'm more familiar with on the forum have certain feelings to me - like Mercutio has a feeling :-p.. and I kinda trust those when it comes to putting them into categories, but until then I'm !@##ed basically. :-p I wonder how intuitives feel in going about typing people?

so what category did you stick me in.

[Suz]

It doesn't matter if your S or N, noobs of all types do that.


For myself, over time, it's become more about how someone 'feels' when I interact with them, what Fe dominance feels like, FeSi ego vs FeNi ego, alpha nature, beta nature, etc.

What unvalued Se feels like, etc. Specific parts and elements of whole things. They all 'feel' certain ways in relation to me, some things more psychologically appealing than others.

Alphas feel comfortable but not very productive, etc. They are good for chilling out but not quite as much for actually 'doing something'.


It's subjective and dependent on your type, and it does take time to accurately associate stimulous with terminology, but, it works.

Would you mind downloading that info into my brain? I would REALLY appreciate it. Thanks.

[Marie84]

I think an argument can be made that anyone weak in a function will be less adept at understanding Socionics/typing people.
Although I think it's more reasonable to make an argument that people strong in certain functions may have an easier time picking-up certain qualities in a person that would make said persons type more probable

[Rubicon]

All I know is, if the assumption that sensors can't type very well becomes accepted and they leave it to the intuitives to come up with all the ideas and not give input in forming a system - that system will be bias against sensors and will probably get it wrong with sensors as well. Isn't there some kind of saying here? I think it's something like "If you don't speak up, no one will hear you and people will decide of you what will suit them."

Or in other words, intuitives aren't psychic so speak up and correct what is inaccurate or wrong.

Yeah, I guess so. Good point. :-)

ALL IN ALL HAVE FUN AND REMEMBER TO NOT REPORT ANYTHING. I MIGHT GET IN TROUBLE.

I HOPE YOU DO. THAT WOULD BE AWESOME.

so what category did you stick me in.

likeable a$$hole, or something to that effect

[consentingadult]

it's actually the intuitives that are superficial. it's cos they get "ideas" that are removed from reality.

Not so, sensors are the genetic results of interbreeding between homo sapiens (which have had forward panning capabilities rom their very first onset) and homo neanderthalensis (who seemed to live mostly in the here-and-now). You're not a contribution to the gene pool, you're its pollution.

[Satan]

Not so, sensors are the genetic results of interbreeding between homo sapiens (which have had forward panning capabilities rom their very first onset) and homo neanderthalensis (who seemed to live mostly in the here-and-now). You're not a contribution to the gene pool, you're its pollution.

Really at the end of the day, you're just some guy who uses big words on the internet.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[consentingadult]

Really at the end of the day, you're just some guy who uses big words on the internet.

You sound like a true SLE: critizing people for using language that you yourself are too stupid to understand.

[DirectorAbbie]

That would work in terms of developing my own model :-p .. but not really with socionics, being that in learning, I have to start with the type/function descriptions etc which are full of flaws, contradictions and generalisations.

How do you type people? If I don't make the person do half the work, I observe them for a while and compare hem to other people I've typed.

[Satan]

You sound like a true SLE: critizing people for using language that you yourself are too stupid to understand.

Do you know what a lever is.