I don't go out and type people, but as I'm interacting with someone I might notice some aspect of their personality, whether it's that they're probably a type with a certain information element in the ego block, or maybe temperament, or whatever. Sometimes just that they seem like some particular type. But I feel no need to come to a conclusion on what type someone is. I'm fine with "Delta ST" or even something more vague than taht.
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.-Mark Twain
You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.
By Dichotomies.
Merry/Serious
Decisive/Judicious
Those are usually pretty easy to tell.
I generally go by overall impressions of how I understand each type. Overall affect is what I take in first, but if the opportunity arises I try to sink my teeth into the person's brain to draw out valued IEs. Knowing their enneatype and stacking helps a lot too, just to give what I'm observing a greater context outside of socionics.
Observation, observation, observation.When you want to figure out what someone's type is how do you go about doing it?
I need to come to a conclusion about the person's type. Then I can develop my approach or "match" them if they want me to. etc. I'm very good at making a decision/conclusion, but when I get indecisive, it's usually that I'm considering a big picture or something that needs to go into that picture before I make my conclusion. When I do make a conclusion, that's it; that's the conclusion and it's usually not easy for me to change my own judgment on something that I'm very confident about.
-
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
I'm bumping this ancient thread. Partially because I'm curious to see how/if people's typing methodologies have changed since I was here a lot, and partially because I re-read my last post and no one ever responded to it, but it's still a pretty good summary of how I like to type people, when/if I type people. The only changes are that I do it less than I used to, and I think maybe my understanding of how people interact with people of different quadras has changed somewhat. I think maybe I can see how relationships between people who aren't predicted to have great relationships socionics-wise can be good a little better these days.
Not a rule, just a trend.
IEI. Probably Fe subtype. Pretty sure I'm E4, sexual instinctual type, fairly confident that I'm a 3 wing now, so: IEI-Fe E4w3 sx/so. Considering 3w4 now, but pretty sure that 4 fits the best.
Yes 'a ma'am that's pretty music...
I am grateful for the mystery of the soul, because without it, there could be no contemplation, except of the mysteries of divinity, which are far more dangerous to get wrong.
.
Last edited by mfckr; 12-25-2014 at 12:49 AM.
even though my post is 3 years old, i think i still pretty much approach typing the same way.Originally Posted by glam
i like the Temperaments, Quadras and Clubs; each of these offers its own snapshot based intuitive perspective that is integrated into a composite intuition on a person's type. functions i have started putting less stock in over the years; they are more like phantoms of the theory (like particles in quantum mechanics) than real things that can be pointed at and shown, or even "seen" beyond what Ts, Qs and Cs can tell you.
now, that is just the first stage of the process. after you've intuitively decided on a typing or a partial typing (such as IxTp; which i strongly encourage) by this method, you need to find more demonstrable features of typing eligibility to be able to meaningfully contribute to a typing debate. intuition can be a guide to the process of finding things that can approximate (by which i expressly don't mean reach) the solidity of empirical proof, but as a mere "as offered" confession it is insufficient. the search should be for things of which both the "measurement" (i.e. whether it is the case) and the pertinence (i.e. what it means, in what way it is relevant) are not publicly disputed (much). but on a community wide level there should also be means of settling disputes on what matters and how facts pertaining to typings are established...
the second stage is where i (and by my estimation pretty much everyone) gets stuck, which is why i don't spend much time discussing typings anymore. the only way to really fix the process is to introduce an extensive academic environment complete with empirical testing and statistical correlation work being done, but the resources for that just aren't here, not to mention much of a motivation for it. and this assumes somewhat liberally that in the end it would be possible in the first place.
Merry/Serious is almost always easy to figure out based on the following question: Do they seem to have time to entertain my "nonsense", as it has been affectionately referred to. If they have Ti as valued and conscious, they do. Sometimes if they have Te ego they do as well. But if they don't they're most usually a serious type.
Temperment is relatively easy to figure out. As is Static/Dynamic. Sometimes educated guesses(adlibs) can lead to accurate end products after you get temperament.
The Essence of the quadras is easy to differentiate in my mind, so i'll use those on those typings where 3 of the 4 letters make sense.
But i never settle into concrete certainty for anything, because these are largely concepts and concepts are based on perception and not fact. What purpose does it serve to transmute the flexible concept into concete fact? <- Te Polr maybe
I dont think VI'ing features or visual appearance has any merit whatsoever, but i do think there's value in observing mannerisms and similarity in behavior.
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.
I usually just focus on what I read and apply it on this forum - most keep to myself in my head (just to check whether it coincides with user self-typings or not), some spit out and this Socionics via Absurd. With a little practice you too, can be disco dancing with the best.
And facts do speak for themselves without interpretation - not unless one wants to interpret an event by twisting the facts to suit something.
I did. In my head. Anyway, have to drive, be back soonish (I think).
Temperaments, clubs and quadras are ok iff a person is a stereotypical example of that type. I find them useless for most typings.
information elements are ok, if using a more flexible understanding than the basic definitions (i.e. not the augusta, rixpatian kinds). That, and inter-type relationships, which is a powerful typing tool.
(I don't really care that much anymore though)
Ni: Reinin is magical
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.
I thought Reinin was some kind of Ti people, at least from what I've seen (little). I can be wrong though. All in all, following lungs' post about science, it's funny Gamma NTs are "way more" scientific(?) actually swimming happily in a cell made especially for them. Jung and his clinical patients observations included...
Last edited by Absurd; 08-07-2013 at 06:37 PM.
Reinin is ILE, so you're right..
I just delight in being correct in being right, thanks.
4x4 grid is drawn to the ground, one square for each type, fenced and then you decapitate a chicken, throw it with divine guidance, see where it stops running while you chant yellow pages.
“I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden
By what methods do you type people?
Hey hey!
So I'm just hoping that y'all could throw around some thoughts on how you detect types.
There's some types that I'm pretty good at recognizing, and others that I really don't know how to recognize...
Some people I meet and immediately feel a familiarity and know their type, and others boggle my mind!!
I think I recognize the Beta types the easiest, so if you have tips on how to recognize any/all types of the other quadras
I'd love it! (but if you want to include Beta as well, that's cool - all things welcome)
Anything goes. Whether you recently figured out someone's type and want to talk about that
or just any general thoughts would be great.
*BTW I would prefer, though, that this would be based on in-person experience with people, rather than typing off text.
Thanks!!!
Intuition and experience. "Expert judgements" as it were, to whatever extremely limited extent I might be considered an expert, though. I think this is the same "system" most people use, and the root of most disagreements. Everyone looks for different salient points that characterise the types, in whatever implicit or explicit vocabulary or symbology they have at their disposal. I guess if you wanted to accelerate into typology, you should read around on different author type descriptions, and familiarise yourself with the Big Five personality traits. From there, you should be able to characterise each of the types according to the Big Five factors (IEIs are Open and Introverted, adjusted for gender). That's just a speculative program, though
Thanks @Holon.
Yea I've actually already been into socionics for about a year and a half or two... I just never got into typing people too much except for some people I worked with...
The rest of the time I'd read about myself, my dual, and my dual relationship you know?
So now I kinda want to branch out..
When I joined this site I sort of played around for months getting familiar with ideas but didn't really read much of the material and didn't want to so I was clueless to the lingo even though I was picking up on behaviors and certain traits and had already began putting people here into categories with people I knew in real life. Anyway the whole time I was playing around here I was observing and learning about socionics through my own interactions and with the help of forum members who gave me good instructions on what to focus on. It worked better than trying to read all that stuff all at once. Now I have a good basic understanding of it so I remember what I have learned exploring here, and using my intuition I am pretty good at matching people up to their types irl. I would say 80% intuitive and the rest based on my memories of what I have read not only the "official" socionics stuff but also my observations of people here and the stories they share. I do a lot of free association.
I knew nothing of socionics before December last year.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
Are you threatening me?
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
Are you threatening me?
Hmmmm, it shows that I was mentioned but I don't see any mentionings.
I typically use information elements which includes strengths, weakness, quadra values, etc. Dichotomies as well but not so much with Reinin, mainly the basic ethical/logical and intuitive/sensor.
I've seen it said that Alphas are the children, Betas are the teens, Gammas are the middle-aged and Deltas are the oldest. Also seen it said that Alphas are childish in judgment and perception, Betas are childish in judgment but mature in perception, Gammas are mature in both judgment and perception, Deltas are mature in judgment but childish in perception (Fe/Ti, Ne/Si = childish, Ni/Se, Te/Fi = mature). I find these are good ways to look at it.
I'll only mention how Alphas typically seem to me since I feel like I have plenty of friends who are Alphas. They are usually really chill or really goofy. A lot more smiley, simple and warm than Betas but less dramatic and don't put as much energy into getting everyone involved even if they do enjoy group activities. Prioritize enjoyment in their lives and often don't seem that ambitious. I might not do a lot but my aspirations are still pretty big. Many of them seem into gaming but aren't that competitive in my eyes. Best friend is SEI and he finds the games I enjoy stressful and he's more likely to enjoy story mode while I basically only play FPS like COD and Battlefield online where I'm wrecking people. They're easy to get along with, likeable/cute but sometimes their simple happiness can be puzzling to me, you know? Does that help any?
Alpha is like this.
Beta is like this.
Gamma is like this.
Delta is like this.
Last edited by suedehead; 07-01-2014 at 04:38 AM.
i don't type ppl using a particular method. also, i am never sure about my typings. i'd say that i mostly base them on pre-existing patterns,either from vi,quadras,perception of functions etc
You feel like a nice blended NiTi to me. It sounds like a tropical drink consumed by mermaids...*splash*
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
hmm, well, when I found out about MBTI I got pretty much my whole family and close friends to take the online tests, then to read through descriptions and see if they match and if not then to look for some that do match. There were a few (I think two) people who didn't take tests and only read through the descriptions and chose. Then when I got into socionics I cross-checked their typings whether they transfer or not (basically along the "leading" and "creative" transfer).
Once I had that, I felt like they are my "base" for comparisons. Then I started learning more about how particular traits manifest irl and started questioning their typings in my mind (some I questioned irl discussing them with some of the people mentioned above, which led to some interesting discussions and learning, but all in all their typings didn't change except for one person from EIE to ESE, but I'm still hesitant on this one tbqh) and figuring out whether they use Ne, Ni, Fe, Fi, Te, Ti, etc. and whether the way these are used indicates their subtype.
So... that's my "base", which I periodically question - which then prompts me into reading more about particular traits manifestations depending on whether it's leading, creative, in which type and quadra... I also cross-check with VI examples that can be found in this forum, especially with the video material, as I feel mannerisms are the most important in VI if it's to be of any value.
Having said that, the people I was trying to recently type are my students and their parents or people I know but not too well cause they are a friend of a friend or sth and I find it's easiest to figure out the Fe/Ti divide and then go from that (nothing that hasn't been said in this forum, so I won't ramble even longer here). So depending on situation I go with it like this or listen to what my gut feeling is and then work my way backwards to see whether sth contradicts it.
I guess that's pretty much it.
Typing in this forum is like going into a zoo with lights off, some things shine through the writing, some things don't and going through any person's or celebrity's typing thread pretty much shows this, with results often akin to...
I have a rather specific method. Usually someone will do something that gives me some guess as to what type they might be. Usually it has to do with their relationship to me. If it's relative to me, it's usually a guess as to quadra. Then my next step is all about intertype relations. Who are they particularly close to? Do they surround themselves with alphas, betas, gammas, deltas? Do they complain about people who are clearly one type or another. Who are they most themselves around? For instance, I work with a guy who is very plainly NT and a woman who I type as some kind of feeler. Now, I had no idea that this woman was as gregarious and interesting and friendly and funny as she is, because when I first met her she was around this NT dude and she was totally withdrawing into something that was not herself. That's a common reaction to polr interactions. Then, this NT dude keeps talking about logical problem solving, and working in a very Ti (as opposed to Te) fashion. So then I begin to suspect he's an LII, and that accordingly, she's probably some sort of gamma or delta sensor, given her really painful reaction to Ti. Given that I suspect she's a feeler, I now guess SEE or ESI for her type (and the more I think about it, the more one of those makes a lot of sense for her. She comes off as an introvert, creative subtype, so I guess ESI-Se is my current type assumption for her).
I also think that I tend to type in terms of the IEs that I understand intuitively. I can spot an Fe-leading type from 100 paces, with pretty reliable accuracy (they frequently remind me of actors, and I know PLENTY of actors). I can also discern certain types of Ni-leading folks pretty quickly as well---IEIs tend to be pretty easy for me to spot because there's something I recognize in their attitudes/detachment. (And now that I think of it, relative to a debate that seems to have recurred on this forum, there do seem to be relatively few people I'd type as IEI in my general interactions. I don't even know that I'm irl friends with anyone else I'd type IEI. But maybe that's because I want to be a special snowflake, I dunno). I don't understand Si and I tend to overtype people as ESE (perhaps as a consequence of that) so I try to be very very careful about that typing. Honestly I just try to be careful about typing anyone as ESE or LSE because those are types that I tend to get wrong.
If I decide to type someone who I don't already have a hunch about, I generally start either with Club (NF, NT, ST, SF) or Temperament (IP, IJ, EP, EJ). Oddly enough for intuitives I tend to go for club first, and for sensors I tend to go for temperament first. Then I'll refine Club and/or Temperament into a decent guess or three about type.
Above all, I try to come up with a well-supported guess about a person's type and then behave towards that person as-if they were that type, and then see what happens. I look at their interactions as if they were the type I guessed they were and then see if they follow the theory or not. For instance, LII co-worker is secretly quite chatty and loves to have long, energetic conversations with our mutual boss (who is clearly also some sort of Fe-valuer). But when I enter those conversations I immediately flow better in them (get more attention, more laughs, more agreement, etc.) than he does, because while he values Fe, I am, well, better at it. So that's another point of evidence in favor of the typing.
Not a rule, just a trend.
IEI. Probably Fe subtype. Pretty sure I'm E4, sexual instinctual type, fairly confident that I'm a 3 wing now, so: IEI-Fe E4w3 sx/so. Considering 3w4 now, but pretty sure that 4 fits the best.
Yes 'a ma'am that's pretty music...
I am grateful for the mystery of the soul, because without it, there could be no contemplation, except of the mysteries of divinity, which are far more dangerous to get wrong.
seat of the pants method
Science.
i have found that eliminating the absurd and vowing not to consider it helps keep me on track (if everything is absurd then you must ask yourself what am i missing). if you tend to come up with ridiculous theories like myself i would recommend it.
My typology system is made of ESFj's and not-ESFj's.
I actually just have a merry old time doing whatever I want, and then the person will do something and I'll be like "that's awfully EII...". Then I'll keep my eyes out for other things they do to confirm. So a lot of people I have no idea about, and some people I think "either EII or ESI... or ILI?" and the rest I have a good idea of.
Warm Regards,
Clowns & Entropy
Science.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ire-(LadyB320)
In socionics, it is a blend of the quadra types with how they play out in specific information elements. I look for evidence of these as well as evidence that the desired interrelations to the non-ego blocks hold. In short, I type by information elements all fitting together in the rough pattern they are meant to, using other dichotomies/forms of cognition/etc as supplements for detection of the required patterns.
That said, I experience doubt in typings and am still not decided on my own.
Reply With Quote
