No cheating for those that have read my posts.
How would you VI me?
No cheating for those that have read my posts.
May I ask where you learned about "VI" and the idea that somebody can be typed in socionics by looking at a single low-quality image? I can only assume that this meme persists year after year because a certain website still is at the top of socionics search results.
Olimpia: Fi valuing
very constructive.Originally Posted by Olimpia
much wow
http://www.socionics.com
I got significantly better results than you'd expect from random guesses on their quiz, and wondered if it's just because their VI quiz uses excessively stereotypical images or if there's anything to it. So now I want to see if people VI me as the type I think I am. Or if they don't then will they at least come close or mistype the way I expect them to.
Se Polr
LSI-Se 836 Sp/Sx
Seductively
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
Using Visual Identification. http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...=1#post1096450
Originally Posted by Sol
Recommendations of materials for typing
There are 2 kinds of information used for typing: 1 - behavior like actions and speech, 2 - nonverbal behavior.
IRL observations and video give both kinds of typing information. First kind of behavior is analysed logically, while nonverbal behavior is analysed by intuitive impressions mostly. Nonverbal behavior is a half or more of information useful for typing. Most typers prefer to have both kinds of information about behavior as partial information reduces probability for correct typing. Some typers even will not do typing if there is no full information to wich they got accustomed to.
The videointerview has to contain your tale about yourself. If you have difficulties in what to tell about, you may tell: "What do I do better than others. What do others do better than me."
- duration of the video is 10 min or more
- resolution 480p or more
- bottom view line is near a chest, camera is directed horizontaly (not from bellow or other side)
- good light, no deep shadows on the face
- do not wear glasses or headphones
- the gap between taking of psychotropic med and video recording should be >2 weeks
- the atmosphere is comfortable and confident
- you may speak on any language in the video, but in non-English case it's useful to add a questionnaire in English
Examples of how a video frame should look: 1, 2
Links to your video and other materials place in the 1st message. It's good to write in the title of your typing thread about availability of the video (if you can't edit the theme's title, you may create new thread).
It's doubtfully to identify correctly your type without nonverbal infromation as it gives much about your type. To type without videointerview is not serious. A questionnaire may be useful as additional material. Photos are useful only as addition, as they give much lesser nonverbal information than a video.
You may try different typing tests, including MBT's ones as they are about same Jung's types.
There is also experimental IR test, which is useful to check the possibility the version said by video was correct.
In common, you get several versions of your type or sometimes only part of your type. Then you should check these versions yourself, including by intertype relations (IR). Typers only help you.
It's important to have theory fitting to reality good. But it's not obligatory to have 100% fitting to descriptions as they were made for average case, while many factors affect peoples' behavior and relations.
It's important to know that Jung's typology practice is far from perfect now. Generally, typers match in types up to 30% only, when they did not know others versions beforehand. It's common when typers don't give detailed explanation how they've come to type version. There are no logically strict typing methods, no objectively proved methods. Typers use many speculations and subjectivism, when use intuition (especially for nonverbal information) they can't base clearly, - as a result arguments are not unambiguously and exhaustively, even if they'd try and wanted to do this.
roflmao
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
Well sure, if they tell you "ESEs have big eyebrows" and then show you some pictures of people with big eyebrows then it can't be too hard to get it "right". It has nothing to do with personality though.
he has something from ESE, lol
but I'd look the video to be sure in anything
Last edited by Sol; 10-17-2017 at 09:27 AM.
I didn't even read their advice on how to VI from images though, I was just looking at the pictures and going with my gut trying to guess what kind of person they are. Do they seem like they're tough or like they're a softy, do they seem like they'd have dark thoughts, energetic, curious, etc. Do they remind me of people whose types I know?
I think I'm probably LII.
@Pole thought Se POLR so that had a 1/8 chance of being correct.
@reverie had a 1/2 chance of being correct with Ne/Si.
@Cosmic Teapot said I remind her of someone that types themselves as LII (But disagrees and think she's Fi valuing. If you thought I might be Fi valuing instead were there any particular types? The ILI, IEEs and LSEs I know give off rather different vibes)
So looks like it's better than chance.
I understand that Socionics looks like birds guessing, but it's not. Without normal typing material you have low chances to be typed correctly.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote