Typing Methodologies

[Mattie]

I don't remember when the last "How do you type!?" thread has been created, but this is going to be contrasting in the manner of "How do you apply Socionics to reality and get something useful out of it?" It's readily apparent that there are differing views which are ultimately the amount of how many members there are here. I thought it would be insightful to share how we all find Socionics useful, such as having personal rules of thumbs or ideologies. I'm hoping this can be less of a "This method is right, this method is wrong" in hopes for a more holistic approach to the subject at large. For example, maybe you VI first and this gives you a better frame of reference to then start deducing what type a person is. Or, when talking to the person in question, you throw out key words or concepts and see how they react to them, and see how that may correlate to type. Also share what about Socionics you'd like there to be clarity/improvement, as well as certain practices or techniques you use. I'm interested to see descriptions along the line of "A Day in the Life of a 'Socionist,'" how an awareness of a process like Socionics has changed how you look at things, and would be helpful for everyone to know.

[1981slater]

I have been more than 5 years reading about Socionics and Psychology. It's like learning a foreign language: at the beginning, I was slow at reading, I couldn't understand what I was being told, etc. Speaking on Socionics, now I can usually recognize a type promptly: movements, facial expressions, clothes, what they talk about and how they interact with me...
Typing is an instinct, not a method
FREE YOUR MIND,

[Creepy-male]

+1. You learn to pick up on people's type.

[krieger]

Typing is an instinct, not a method

The instinctive approach is near useless. The only reason people engage in it is because they have a religious belief in their own abilities. They think that they are the next "typing messiah" that gets all the answers right just by guessing at them. Meanwhile, everybody reaches different conclusions on any person's type when applying the "vibe-typing" method. If in such a situation only one person can be right about the type, it follows that the rest of them are terminally deluded. Add to this the fact that the person that is "right" across different cases is not even always the same person, and you get a really dismal view of the sanity of people who engage in this childish game.

[Words]

The instinctive approach is near useless. The only reason people engage in it is because they have a religious belief in their own abilities. They think that they are the next "typing messiah" that gets all the answers right just by guessing at them. Meanwhile, everybody reaches different conclusions on any person's type when applying the "vibe-typing" method. If in such a situation only one person can be right about the type, it follows that the rest of them are terminally deluded. Add to this the fact that the person that is "right" across different cases is not even always the same person, and you get a really dismal view of the sanity of people who engage in this childish game.

Well, as far as I know an Si leading person would be interested in health, balance of life, pleasurable sensations. However what about the Si leading types that are fat and live life excessively or the ISFps who are extremely work focused and have risen quite highly in their careers? The health is negligent in one, the balance of life negligent in both, and the pleasurable sensations negligent in the later - perhaps even all three in the latter.

Unfortunately, socionics, the functions, the types are so vague and ill-defined in any practical sense that so often it is the case that we have to rely on 'intuitive' impressions of peoples types. Even going by 'the book' eg wikisocion produces incorrect assessments of peoples types.

Socionics is a pseudo science which might not actually even exist. Perhaps it's just a philosophical approach to people and relationships.

I would like to agree with you and do things without any instinctive approach, but perhaps considering what i've wrote, you could advise me how it is to be avoided? The only way I can see to avoid it is for a person just to create their own understanding or rather - a more correct word - interpretation of socionics, which no matter how well layered it is, is still built upon some form of 'instinct', personal impression etc.

That socionics isn't objectively defined - I simply back this up by demonstrating every type discussion and every discussion about the functions.

[Mattie]

The instinctive approach is near useless. The only reason people engage in it is because they have a religious belief in their own abilities. They think that they are the next "typing messiah" that gets all the answers right just by guessing at them. Meanwhile, everybody reaches different conclusions on any person's type when applying the "vibe-typing" method. If in such a situation only one person can be right about the type, it follows that the rest of them are terminally deluded. Add to this the fact that the person that is "right" across different cases is not even always the same person, and you get a really dismal view of the sanity of people who engage in this childish game.

I am generally in agreement with this, but I think it's only fair for you to share what you do instead of coming in just to criticize others.

Unfortunately, socionics, the functions, the types are so vague and ill-defined in any practical sense that so often it is the case that we have to rely on 'intuitive' impressions of peoples types. Even going by 'the book' eg wikisocion produces incorrect assessments of peoples types.

You bring up a lot of good points and questions, all of which were in my mid as I decided to make this post. I think everyone has to to this conclusion and question what they have established in their minds (this is how my "Socionics journey" went, if you will), but it's possible only certain types (not Socionic) of people will indeed question the validity and consistency of the terms both used by "sources" and by the community. Whether or not they are isn't the ultimate question that everyone will arrive to the same answer, but I do think it's imperative that everyone does question and come to a well thought out answer.

Socionics is a pseudo science which might not actually even exist. Perhaps it's just a philosophical approach to people and relationships.

More and more I lean towards this, because I find there will never be enough motivation or ability to test Socionics, and if so, anyone can ultimately say anything "inspired" by Socionics' writing. This is what I'd like this thread to be about, I'm curious to know how everyone came to their current understanding and application of Socionics, or at least have people start asking themselves this question. Though, it might turn some discussion moot in others' opinions, which wouldn't be ideal since there are people who think there is a general right way and general wrong way to do this.

I would like to agree with you and do things without any instinctive approach, but perhaps considering what i've wrote, you could advise me how it is to be avoided? The only way I can see to avoid it is for a person just to create their own understanding or rather - a more correct word - interpretation of socionics, which no matter how well layered it is, is still built upon some form of 'instinct', personal impression etc.

Your own subjective understanding how Socionics and how you deal with things such as Socionics will be the foundation of everything you learn, and it's hard if not impossible to get rid of it, and it's almost unnecessary to. To have it be the focus, well, that's debatable, but that might just go under having a different interpretation like you mentioned. Even Labcoat goes along with a rather predictable manner of responding to certain posts (this isn't to call him out, but rather say that even someone who brings up that you can't allow your instincts to rule your understanding, you ultimately had that instinct already. It's just not completely a bad thing). The only thing I've come up with is to come up with certain criteria and make sure you follow them from the beginning, and then update each time you learn something new.

That socionics isn't objectively defined - I simply back this up by demonstrating every type discussion and every discussion about the functions.

[consentingadult]

I don't remember when the last "How do you type!?" thread has been created, but this is going to be contrasting in the manner of "How do you apply Socionics to reality and get something useful out of it?" It's readily apparent that there are differing views which are ultimately the amount of how many members there are here. I thought it would be insightful to share how we all find Socionics useful, such as having personal rules of thumbs or ideologies. I'm hoping this can be less of a "This method is right, this method is wrong" in hopes for a more holistic approach to the subject at large. For example, maybe you VI first and this gives you a better frame of reference to then start deducing what type a person is. Or, when talking to the person in question, you throw out key words or concepts and see how they react to them, and see how that may correlate to type. Also share what about Socionics you'd like there to be clarity/improvement, as well as certain practices or techniques you use. I'm interested to see descriptions along the line of "A Day in the Life of a 'Socionist,'" how an awareness of a process like Socionics has changed how you look at things, and would be helpful for everyone to know.

Now that I'm an 'experienced' typer, I go largely by processes of transference and counter-transference.

[Aiss]

I don't remember when the last "How do you type!?" thread has been created, but this is going to be contrasting in the manner of "How do you apply Socionics to reality and get something useful out of it?" It's readily apparent that there are differing views which are ultimately the amount of how many members there are here. I thought it would be insightful to share how we all find Socionics useful, such as having personal rules of thumbs or ideologies. I'm hoping this can be less of a "This method is right, this method is wrong" in hopes for a more holistic approach to the subject at large. For example, maybe you VI first and this gives you a better frame of reference to then start deducing what type a person is. Or, when talking to the person in question, you throw out key words or concepts and see how they react to them, and see how that may correlate to type. Also share what about Socionics you'd like there to be clarity/improvement, as well as certain practices or techniques you use. I'm interested to see descriptions along the line of "A Day in the Life of a 'Socionist,'" how an awareness of a process like Socionics has changed how you look at things, and would be helpful for everyone to know.

The way you speak of holistic approach yet focus on explicit steps and possibilities sounds Ne to me - internal, but object-focused element.

I am generally in agreement with this, but I think it's only fair for you to share what you do instead of coming in just to criticize others.

You bring up a lot of good points and questions, all of which were in my mid as I decided to make this post. I think everyone has to to this conclusion and question what they have established in their minds (this is how my "Socionics journey" went, if you will), but it's possible only certain types (not Socionic) of people will indeed question the validity and consistency of the terms both used by "sources" and by the community. Whether or not they are isn't the ultimate question that everyone will arrive to the same answer, but I do think it's imperative that everyone does question and come to a well thought out answer.

More and more I lean towards this, because I find there will never be enough motivation or ability to test Socionics, and if so, anyone can ultimately say anything "inspired" by Socionics' writing. This is what I'd like this thread to be about, I'm curious to know how everyone came to their current understanding and application of Socionics, or at least have people start asking themselves this question. Though, it might turn some discussion moot in others' opinions, which wouldn't be ideal since there are people who think there is a general right way and general wrong way to do this.

Your own subjective understanding how Socionics and how you deal with things such as Socionics will be the foundation of everything you learn, and it's hard if not impossible to get rid of it, and it's almost unnecessary to. To have it be the focus, well, that's debatable, but that might just go under having a different interpretation like you mentioned. Even Labcoat goes along with a rather predictable manner of responding to certain posts (this isn't to call him out, but rather say that even someone who brings up that you can't allow your instincts to rule your understanding, you ultimately had that instinct already. It's just not completely a bad thing). The only thing I've come up with is to come up with certain criteria and make sure you follow them from the beginning, and then update each time you learn something new.

You seem to have come into socionics with a preconceived notion of it in mind, of what it is if not how it is - open to learn it, but with a preconception of it itself. This is characteristic of static ego, introverted function of which is rational - the context may be explicit or not, but it's set. As well, rather than consider the existing theory in an abstract matter, you come off as personally involved when speaking of its potential, though not emotional - considering your attitude to it based on its potential.

The way you speak of sources and then constructing an understanding, updating it, is inherently static again. In static types, things are perceived and add up to a judging framework. In dynamic types, things are judged individually and perceived holistically, resulting in perspective, a mindset rather than a core model. The key concepts here are construction and emergence; both seem to yield comparable results as far as socionics is concerned.

So static, Ne and Fi. I would probably add that you seem more determined about Fi and natural about Ne, which would suggest Fi covering for Ti-PoLR while you don't seem to feel the need to prove anything about Ne; an IEE dynamic.

---

Well, you did ask for practical examples. There go my mystical vibes.

[ilikesex]

More and more I lean towards this, because I find there will never be enough motivation or ability to test Socionics, and if so, anyone can ultimately say anything "inspired" by Socionics' writing. This is what I'd like this thread to be about, I'm curious to know how everyone came to their current understanding and application of Socionics, or at least have people start asking themselves this question. Though, it might turn some discussion moot in others' opinions, which wouldn't be ideal since there are people who think there is a general right way and general wrong way to do this.

how much jung have you read? you should read some jung.

[Azeroffs]

When I try to apply socionics, I try to keep in mind what socionics is. (information metabolism; essentially, what people are aware of and focus on.) I then look for anything which might signify key aspects of an element. What does this person focus on? How do their thoughts reflect their focus? How do their actions reflect their focus? I try to get into people's motivations and thoughts and derive where those motivations might have come from. A lot of the time it's unclear as a single action could the result of many different motivations, and motivation from many different awarenesses. I keep in mind that getting into people's heads is not easy, and often impossible unless they're willing to bring you in. I rely on my ability interpret the reasoning of things and people's vibes, but it's a constant battle of building up and then breaking down the conclusions I come to. Over time I've begun to realize the impracticality of trying to do quick typings, and I only give typings weight in situations where I'm able to get really close to a person and be sure I know them at a deep level.

Really the only thing of practical use I get out of socionics on a daily bases is the realization that people just have different ways of thinking about things and a way to try to rationalize it. I might assign a type or traits of a type to a person in order to understand where their coming from and adjust my perspective in order reach a compromise in situations of misunderstanding or general disagreement. But, often these traits I assign to the person are temporary in order to get through the misunderstanding. Assigning a permanent type to someone takes a long time and generally just doesn't happen as it's too impractical to come to any finalized sense of certainty that I have figured out their true type. There are a number who I will give provisional types to, but they're all very subject to change, and I really don't give any weight to the typing making it essentially pointless.

[Jarno]

Typing by comparison. (You do need a large database in your mind of people and their behaviour.)

If it walks and talks like a certain type, it is part of that type category.

[Logos]

I have developed a cynical outlook towards typology. Typing rarely seems to be employed in a methodological manner. More often than not typing becomes an exercise of "I hate you" or "You rub me the wrong way," so you are in my opposing quadra. Or "I like you" or "You do not annoy me as much as others," so you must be in my quadra or an adjacent one. And of course the all too frequent, "You're so hawt, I want you in my quadra right now!"

[mu4]

You're so hawt, I want you in my quadra right now!

[Mattie]

Now that I'm an 'experienced' typer, I go largely by processes of transference and counter-transference.

Mind explaining this in a little more detail? I'm unfamiliar with what you're talking about.

Well, you did ask for practical examples. There go my mystical vibes.

Can't argue with that I'm guessing that you identify through dichotomies to gain context until you can start to spot the IMEs and their positions?

how much jung have you read? you should read some jung.

Most of the Jung I've read had to do with his other observations (archetypes such as shadow, anima, etc) rather than his functions. I have obtained his writing on psychological types and plan to read it when I have time. Why do you suggest this in particular, and I guess a more pertinent questions would be, has specifically reading him altered your typing methodology?

I rely on my ability interpret the reasoning of things and people's vibes, but it's a constant battle of building up and then breaking down the conclusions I come to. Over time I've begun to realize the impracticality of trying to do quick typings, and I only give typings weight in situations where I'm able to get really close to a person and be sure I know them at a deep level.

Interesting, for me, something usually tips me off when I'm not looking to type them, and it makes me think "Oooh, this seems like such a good example of >insert IME in a function position here<" and then look to see if it reoccurs. I also find that quick typings are less useful, and over time when the person as a whole is really incorporated into your understanding, and what they do is Socionics-related and what isn't, then it starts to... mean something to you. You experience it and then understand, rather than mentally putting it together.

Really the only thing of practical use I get out of socionics on a daily bases is the realization that people just have different ways of thinking about things and a way to try to rationalize it. I might assign a type or traits of a type to a person in order to understand where their coming from and adjust my perspective in order reach a compromise in situations of misunderstanding or general disagreement. But, often these traits I assign to the person are temporary in order to get through the misunderstanding. Assigning a permanent type to someone takes a long time and generally just doesn't happen as it's too impractical to come to any finalized sense of certainty that I have figured out their true type. There are a number who I will give provisional types to, but they're all very subject to change, and I really don't give any weight to the typing making it essentially pointless.

Huh, usually I feel comfortable with typing someone, but it's not completely etched in stone. I keep the typing until it seems like a lot of information conflicts with the typing (I had a typing of NeTi for my best friend, and as I started to realize certain communication differences, I realized the potential for her being TiNe, and then as I mulled this over, I realized she's been TiNe all along) and use it to understand misunderstandings. I would say I benefited by understanding that certain things people said (like my best friend) weren't being rude, malicious, or intentionally difficult, and I apply Socionics to discern this. I also use it to adjust how I explain things as well, and to anticipate certain issues and prepare for them.

Typing by comparison. (You do need a large database in your mind of people and their behaviour.)

If it walks and talks like a certain type, it is part of that type category.

My question to you would be how did you get your database, and how did you check your database before it was large enough to be reliable?

I have developed a cynical outlook towards typology. Typing rarely seems to be employed in a methodological manner. More often than not typing becomes an exercise of "I hate you" or "You rub me the wrong way," so you are in my opposing quadra. Or "I like you" or "You do not annoy me as much as others," so you must be in my quadra or an adjacent one. And of course the all too frequent, "You're so hawt, I want you in my quadra right now!"

I can understand this cynicism when it comes to the forum, but does this affect you as well? Are you unable to control your own urges? I was hoping for a personal methodology rather than the critique of others'.

[WVBRY]

When I first discovered socionics I read up on the descriptions of the types to get a clear idea in my head of what they were like. I already had some idea, based on MBTI so that part wasnt difficult. After that i immediatly started typing people I knew. As it turned out many of these typings were wrong, some were not. After that I got a better idea of the types and had some common trends in my mind based upon the typings i had made. Now with these common trends I tend to type based on surface impressions i get of people, mainly their behavior and relations with other types.

[Logos]

I can understand this cynicism when it comes to the forum, but does this affect you as well? Are you unable to control your own urges? I was hoping for a personal methodology rather than the critique of others'.

This phenomenon affects everyone unequally. Though asking whether or not I am "unable to control [my] own urges" makes it sound as if it was deviant or perverted behavior. I would say that it becomes easier to reflect on the matter of a subject's type through continual self-awareness of this phenomenon. Sometimes I must ask, What preconceptions do I have about the subject? What preconceptions do I have about a type? Do I have an agenda with this subject? What do I know about them, and more importantly, what do I not know? Is the foundation for my conclusion built upon well-reasoned evidence or intuition?

[Skeptic]

I used to compose a list of actions they performed in what situations and then subjected them to a socionics analysis. This usually involved drawing parallels from their actions to the socionics IEs or descriptions. Aside from being very shady and creepy to have a big database of this, it could take hours if it was complicated enough.

 

Nowadays I recognize how totally inconsistent and wrong human memory is, so that database was really just a subconcious projection of my prejudice. I feel as though interactions with people are like dreams; the further in time you are from the experience, the further you will be from understanding. So I believe in speculation in the moment/right after, but not rushed. I've been trying to come up with a system based on the IEs to make this process easier, which involves reducing the IEs to very abstract concepts applied very indirectly by people in conversation; i.e. he's taking the initiative and speaking very confidently about this, what function is he using (how is he explaining it)? Now this other one is responding to him; how do they relate and is this a relation of functions? It's really intense!

Occasionally I picture everything I know about that person in my mind, trying on different types until one 'fits'. I really need to know them well enough to predict their behavior like that though.

 

A list of benchmark types; comparison is a great way to type someone! What bothers me most about it is that you could have been wrong in the first place, making it self-defeating...
Being around the person for a long time; anything you speculate before this is unreliable. I honestly don't think you can reasonably type anyone if you haven't spent extended periods of time with them, i.e. several sittings of several hours +.
Being around socionics for a long time; By seeking out new materials and reviewing/discussing the old ones I feel I have a more fleshed out version of the IEs.
Getting to know the person.. personally; 1on1 time will give you insights to what they're good at/what they like to do and a general overview of their life if you get that far in conversation.

 

Trying to explain a type based on intertype relations; Typing should be clear and not require abstract explanation. You could be wrong on the other guys' types too.
Typing based on personal feelings; your typings will change as often as your feelings!
Taking another's typing for truth; it ain't true till you've gotten your own hands dirty. I've friends who are just bad.

In general; Vibe typing bad. Don't rely on more than one person to type one person.

Objective typing;

I think objective understanding can be achieved to an extent; instead of blowing the IEs out of proportion in order to compare them to people's actions, I try to simplify people's actions until they compare to the fundamental basic functions. This is why I disagree with removing the essential basics from the functions; though a person's actions may not be forceful, once simplified and examined at their most primitive level they could resemble force.
Clearly, using this method, the problem no longer lies in the interpretation of the functions but rather the examination and simplification of another's actions, which leaves much less room for error imo, especially if you understand the person and their motives.

@words; I held your position a couple months ago; that socionics lacks any application and that it may just be imagined. That's why I tried to learn to apply socionics at its very basic level that left no room for interpretation of the functions but still works.

TBH; you'll never be able to get this crap out of your head so best learn to live with it... that's what I told myself anyway.

[Azeroffs]

Interesting, for me, something usually tips me off when I'm not looking to type them, and it makes me think "Oooh, this seems like such a good example of >insert IME in a function position here<" and then look to see if it reoccurs. I also find that quick typings are less useful, and over time when the person as a whole is really incorporated into your understanding, and what they do is Socionics-related and what isn't, then it starts to... mean something to you. You experience it and then understand, rather than mentally putting it together.

Huh, usually I feel comfortable with typing someone, but it's not completely etched in stone. I keep the typing until it seems like a lot of information conflicts with the typing (I had a typing of NeTi for my best friend, and as I started to realize certain communication differences, I realized the potential for her being TiNe, and then as I mulled this over, I realized she's been TiNe all along) and use it to understand misunderstandings.

Yeah I do the same as what you said here except that I purposefully question myself in order to make sure I have the right typing. But, I have problems with the inherent uncertainty of typings, and the general inability to say beyond a doubt that person is a certain type. So when I break down the uncertain parts, in many cases I could throw out the whole typing. What use is a typing you can't be certain of? How could I possibly make a a decision based on it? How can a make a comparison? Hell, I even question my type from time to time. Of what practical use something like that? I'm pretty comfortable forming opinions, but it doesn't go beyond that except in rare instances, and I'm not willing to base anything on that.

I know that practicality has nothing to do with the topic at hand, but it affects my typing method by scrutinizing it to death so that I might be able to predict how a relationship might turn out or whatever else.

[Logos]

Yeah I do the same as what you said here except that I purposefully question myself in order to make sure I have the right typing. But, I have problems with the inherent uncertainty of typings, and the general inability to say beyond a doubt that person is a certain type. So when I break down the uncertain parts, in many cases I could throw out the whole typing. What use is a typing you can't be certain of? How could I possibly make a a decision based on it? How can a make a comparison? Hell, I even question my type from time to time. Of what practical use something like that? I'm pretty comfortable forming opinions, but it doesn't go beyond that except in rare instances, and I'm not willing to base anything on that.

I know that practicality has nothing to do with the topic at hand, but it affects my typing method by scrutinizing it to death so that I might be able to predict how a relationship might turn out or whatever else.

I beg to differ. Practicality is of enormous importance when discussing methodology. What use are impractical methodologies?

[Azeroffs]

I beg to differ. Practicality is of enormous importance when discussing methodology. What use are impractical methodologies?

I meant the practicality of a typing once established. Basically the practicallity of socionics itself. It's mostly irrelevant to the method one uses in order to come to a typing. Or am I wrong? I'm not sure I understod you correctly.

Basically my whole complaint is that I have to use an impractical method to get some practical use, and even then the practicality is questionable.

[mfckr]

I've no commitment to any given theoretical framework in Socionics—be it Model A, B, T, X, DCNH, or otherwise. So long as Socionics theory remains non-falsifiable, then asserting detailed models about Socionics in lieu of requisite means for experimental verification is a senseless exercise. I opt instead more for general heuristics that seem conducive to accurate & consistent typing. The overall approach tends to be multi-modal and thus broadly inclusive of many different kinds of evidence (catalogued below), with original 1°-source evidence re: the individual taking precedence over anecdotal 2°-sources & interpretations (unless the former is unavailable).

There are of course certain attributes I corroborate as typologically meaningful, along with certain conventional factors I intentionally discount—such as personal competencies, skill-sets, hobbies, and professional achievements. At best these might be weak correlates of type, yet their associated confound potential is high enough to render them unworthy of much consideration—e.g. someone being a venture capitalist shouldn't imply a likelihood of ENTj, someone being a theoretical physicist shouldn't lead to assumptions of ENTp, and so on.

I'm also dismissive of behavioral trait attributions, given their susceptibility to specious biasing errors errors (an entire sub-branch of psychology is topically devoted to this). In short, your idea of "aggressive behavior" may be quite different from my idea of it, such that one seemingly blunt, brash, and forceful to you, may in fact seem largely normal for whatever reason(s) to me.

In a nutshell I'd say: Socionics is better suited as a study of phenomenological cognition, rather than being a theory about efficacy or behavior. Ergo re: typology, I'm less interested in what a person does or how well [they think they do it]; I'm more interested in how they do whatever, and the ways they tend to perceive & experience reality.

Of factors I've been able to infer as reliable type indices, I try not to rely on any singular isolated factor alone to determine a typing. I instead try to gain an overall portrait from a variety of different evidentiary perspectives at my disposal, and see what that converges towards.

Depending on availability, I'll consider any of the following factors:

• Images and/or videos, preferably capturing the individual from a variety of different angles and expressions. Source media must be candid, non-airbrushed, and large/clear enough to notice aspects of that individual's face and demeanor which may be relevant for purposes of VI. I've been able to note certain characteristic patterns of facial muscle activity unique to each type. Recognizing these patterns can be learned, though they're not always immediately apparent. It's important to consider the many ways in which human faces can appear similar or dissimilar in contrast—merely looking like someone is not necessarily the same as VI-ing like someone. The use of VI-like approaches in gauging human personality is an active subject of contemporary psych research, as well. For instance, this article discusses links between facial appearance and Big 5 Trait Theory (link). I've a dozen or so other papers dealing with similar topical matter if anyone's interested.
• Bearing and demeanor in video. What are the person's eye movements like, in what kind of poise do they tend to hold their body, what patterns of muscular tension or slackness are present and where, what sorts of gesticulations do they frequently make? Much of this factors into VI, particularly for purposes of identifying temperament.
• Tone, cadence, semantics, and syntactical patterns present in one's style of speech and/or writing. The syntax structures and semantic content of one's discourse can give a wealth of constructive insight into how they think, what they tend to notice about reality and how, what their preferred modes of understanding are, what qualitative themes color their subjective experiences, and so forth. I corroborate much of this using the Sematics of IEs research page (link). The central unifying question in inferring such data is, "How do they seem to be consistently experiencing and internalizing information, and what qualities about it do they frequently emphasize?" I also try to get an idea of the epistemological values they seem to hold—i.e., upon what standards do they deem something as being valid or useful knowledge? What is their decision-making process like and upon what basis do they seem to be arriving at their judgments?
• Themes present in what they profess to be their values, outlooks, and motives in life—and most importantly, why? What is this person’s 'ontological disposition'—i.e. what sorts of concepts, ideas, and principles do they consider meaningful or condemn as meaningless? Are there particular philosophical or spiritual outlooks they gravitate towards?
• Tastes&preferences in art, aesthetics, and literature. What kinds and forms are they often drawn to, find appealing, or even inspiring? Are there particular artists, writers, comedians, or even actors they enjoy?
• Communication styles and interactions with others of known types that they're personally connected to in any capacity. What sorts of intertype relations make sense as the most plausible between them? This can include but is not limited to: Spouses, significant others, family members, best friends, hated enemies, colleagues, role models, ideological influences, etc. I mostly rely on the intertype relations as they're depicted at socionics.us.
• Spontaneous visceral reactions I have towards the person which I've similarly had towards others of a certain type. Do they attract or repulse me? Do they seem like someone comfortable to be around or someone who'd put me on edge? Do I have a hard time taking them seriously or do they seem to easily command my respect? So on, so forth. These reactions can provide cues about the possible intertype relations between myself and that person.
• Correspondence to certain Reinin dichotomies (link). Thus far, the following seem to contain a grain of observable truth…
  – Static|Dynamic: Tends to be an obvious component of temperament. EJs and IPs are Dynamic, EPs and IJs are Static.
  – Merry|Serious: Useful indicator for / vs. / value preferences, that shows in a person's typical group interaction style and conversational themes.
  – Democracy|Aristocracy: The kinds of interpersonal criteria one uses to assess others, and what forms of social organization they're inclined towards (open/collaborative or closed/hierarchical).
  – Judicious|Decisive: Contrasts / vs. / value preferences. The former tends towards more leisurely paced environs, the latter tends towards more mobilized states of affairs.
  – Positivist|Negativist:
  – Involutory|Evolutory:
  The remaining dichotomies I ignore; I don't have enough experience noticing them, assuming they exist.
• Miscellaneous quirks, idiosyncracies, and minutia I’ve seen recurrent in others of a given type.

Supporting Sources:

1. General Typology: This interview featuring Lenore Thomson is a great primer on the subject of 'what is personality type?'. This article by James Hillman on typologies is also good.
2. Kepinski's Information Metabolism: Everyone should learn about it as I suspect most will find it interesting. My basic view of Socionics is largely shaped and influenced by this. I've found these ideas both effective and useful as a conceptual approach for understanding the nature of Socionics—insofar as what Socionics 'is', what IEs 'are', and what sorts of phenomena we're dealing with (or should recognize we're dealing with) when we try to talk about Socionics.
3. Temperaments: I utilize the basic Four Temperaments idea that's been around for the past few thousand years—Choleric (EJ), Phlegmatic (IJ), Sanguine (EP), Melancholic (IP). I'll find a decent source on this.
4. Information Elements: I largely draw upon Jung's original founding descriptions here, Rick's definitions here and here, and can see promise in Lenore Thomson's ideas here.
5. Reinin Dichotomies: I mostly work from these explanations, along with some characterizations from a few other Socionists.
6. Gulenko's Cognitive Styles: As described in this article, are proving to be another excellent resource for type screening and verification purposes.
7. Intertype Relations: I evaluate these along the same lines as described here and here.
8. Miscellaneous: I use the same 4 quadras with the same 16 basic sociotypes divided among them, each defined by the same 'ego' and 'superid' blocks, etc. I use subtypes too—just the usual accepting/producing 2, no DCNH or anything like that.

[Aiss]

Can't argue with that I'm guessing that you identify through dichotomies to gain context until you can start to spot the IMEs and their positions?

I find myself using mostly IA/IE dichotomies these days, though it really depends on what's most pronounced. In my experience, Jungian dichotomies don't tend to be clear in most cases - I wouldn't be surprised if there was in fact normal distribution, or close enough - but I'll use them if they seem obviously applicable to a person. I consider it most significant if I notice Si/Ne or Ni/Se dynamic, or the same with rational functions, which I suppose could be written down as Reinin's judicious/decisive and merry/serious, but I don't really conform to his ideas about these types.

I tend to wait until I see something than do a check for signs, most of all. If you look for something, you're likely to find it whether it is or isn't there. Not that you can't imagine seeing things, but as it's hard to verify on-spot, it counts as a clue.

Also, I probably wouldn't have commented as I did about your writing if I weren't somehow acquainted with you and considered myself able to tell what's typical for you. Or if it were less about your approach and more about opinions.

Huh, usually I feel comfortable with typing someone, but it's not completely etched in stone. I keep the typing until it seems like a lot of information conflicts with the typing (I had a typing of NeTi for my best friend, and as I started to realize certain communication differences, I realized the potential for her being TiNe, and then as I mulled this over, I realized she's been TiNe all along) and use it to understand misunderstandings.

It reminds me of an argument we had long time ago about typing and mirrors.

TBH; you'll never be able to get this crap out of your head so best learn to live with it... that's what I told myself anyway.

So true.

[Mattie]

When I first discovered socionics I read up on the descriptions of the types to get a clear idea in my head of what they were like. I already had some idea, based on MBTI so that part wasnt difficult. After that i immediatly started typing people I knew. As it turned out many of these typings were wrong, some were not. After that I got a better idea of the types and had some common trends in my mind based upon the typings i had made. Now with these common trends I tend to type based on surface impressions i get of people, mainly their behavior and relations with other types.

Mind giving some examples on what these sort of trends are? Are there some types of trends that are more influential on your typing than others? And what are the differences between the MBTI types and Socionics types, that you've noticed, in practice? Do ENTPs tend to be NeTi, etc?

This phenomenon affects everyone unequally. Though asking whether or not I am "unable to control [my] own urges" makes it sound as if it was deviant or perverted behavior. I would say that it becomes easier to reflect on the matter of a subject's type through continual self-awareness of this phenomenon. Sometimes I must ask, What preconceptions do I have about the subject? What preconceptions do I have about a type? Do I have an agenda with this subject? What do I know about them, and more importantly, what do I not know? Is the foundation for my conclusion built upon well-reasoned evidence or intuition?

I read your original post thinking you were putting a negative light on what you were describing, which is why I said what I did. But I find myself doing this as well, especially when I come to any knee-jerk assessments; I think it's a good rule of thumb to be weary of why you came to a certain conclusion, and to "fact-check" so-to-speak. I also try out typing them another type possibility as a counter-argument, if you will, and see if the original type was a better suggestion or not.

Objective typing;

I think objective understanding can be achieved to an extent; instead of blowing the IEs out of proportion in order to compare them to people's actions, I try to simplify people's actions until they compare to the fundamental basic functions. This is why I disagree with removing the essential basics from the functions; though a person's actions may not be forceful, once simplified and examined at their most primitive level they could resemble force.

What exactly do you mean by "Objective Typing" and what do you consider the "basics" of IAs, IMEs, and the functions? And what is the methodology of how you "simplify" peoples' actions, and how is this useful? I'm not trying to quiz-show you, I'm genuinely curious about this paragraph.

Clearly, using this method, the problem no longer lies in the interpretation of the functions but rather the examination and simplification of another's actions, which leaves much less room for error imo, especially if you understand the person and their motives.

From my understanding, this would cause a lot of trouble. First, you're typing by actions that you don't necessarily know the motivation behind, and because of your type, you seem them in a particular manner. Just as an example and not to drag through theory, you will have a hard time not rationalizing something under your leading IME and it's likely you will not be able to directly observe your Role IME without dedication; and you won't always be having this switch on. So you're always under the influence having an interpretation, putting aside the argument that your subjective understanding of Socionics is, well, subjective. It would take a good amount of time to know a person so well that you can detect their motives to explain each of their actions... I'm not sure, I'd like to hear why you came to this.

Basically my whole complaint is that I have to use an impractical method to get some practical use, and even then the practicality is questionable.

For some reason, I don't find impracticality in how I type and the result. I think it's because I actively try using that information to see if something good can come out of it. It might come from that I've always been confident about my type and when I seem to go through a paradigm shift of understanding, I have confidence in myself to translate things over and adjust how I've been handling things. This also might come from that my ultimate aim to use Socionics as a practical tool, as it seems pretty useless to me otherwise; I don't find it a strong tool at the moment, or it's one who of electric drills with 3445 power settings and I only figured out the go button and make do with that.

My only requirement is that the overwhelming majority of evidence must be of a firsthand (i.e. primary source) nature. I don't like secondhand opinions or intepretations; I like what I can observe with my own eyes or experience myself through interaction.

I find this important because I get very different feelings from people on the forum and in videos and pictures in comparison to my offline interactions. Actually, you don't in person with this, but for me personally, I'd add "In person." The visceral feeling of other people, the fact that you're experiencing them and getting these feelings, create a better context for you as long as you're specifically aware of this context and how it influences you. I had recently plopped down some typing of forum members I've talked a lot with, but even then, something very gaping and missing is evident.

For example, I generally don't put much weight on things such as: Specific competencies or skillsets possessed by that individual, what their professions or hobbies happen to be, what their achievements in life may have been, etc. At best, I'd consider these weak correlates of type

This is something I'm generally aligned with and I find a lot of people disagree with.

As you might already know, I'm pretty dismissive of behavorial trait attributions as well. I consider them highly misleading and too prone to the Fundamental Attribution Error among other things. In assessing others behavior, the subjective element of perception is an oft-forgotten aspect of Socionics…

[...]


To put it in a nutshell: Socionics is infinitely more useful as a theory about cognition than it is a theory about behavior. I'm less interested in what you do, I'm more interested in how you do it, and in the ways you seem to think, feel, and perceive.

I'd like to hear what people have to say to this, because I agree and try not to type based on behavioral traits, but a lot of others' find it to be the way. Is it because there isn't a readily apparent alternative? I already know Ashton's opinion, so I'd wanna hear others'.

I find myself using mostly IA/IE dichotomies these days, though it really depends on what's most pronounced. In my experience, Jungian dichotomies don't tend to be clear in most cases

Reminds me of an argument we once had

Also, I probably wouldn't have commented as I did about your writing if I weren't somehow acquainted with you and considered myself able to tell what's typical for you. Or if it were less about your approach and more about opinions.

What about this was typical, out of curiosity (I want to see what qualities you pick up on), because I'm not really all that great of picking up someone's type on a wall of text.

It reminds me of an argument we had long time ago about typing and mirrors.

It differs a little from what we were talking about. Basically, this is my best friend from around the time I started learning MBTI (when I was 12-13; I am now 23, so MBTI has been in my life for 10 years, jeez), and when I typed her then, she was ENTP. Now, over the years, she has been gradually going to INTP, and I would say she is, indeed, INTP, but I kept in my mind that when was ENTP because I never ran into a problem directly with it. The problem comes in with Socionics because of it's close ties to MBTI... I just switched her over as NeTi because it seemed to work, and I was ENFP and translated well over to NeFi, so why not? The first cue I got that something had gone awry with my Socionics was when I had typed a friend of our's NiTe, but then I realized, oh shit, he's really SiFe! How the hell did I type someone their Super-Ego? I came to the conclusion that it was because he was an INTP in MBTI, and that had colored my typing. So I started to rework my typings now that I was aware of that MBTI-bias that helped me understand Socionics but was making my typings wrong, and I still never questioned my best friend's type; until recently. We have been traveling together and are taking a class together for the first time, and the different modes we have are just way too different, I started to question NeTi, and one day, I just popped into my head "What if she is actually TiNe?" and things eerily fell into place. Until then, I thought I interacted with NeTi differently than with my best friend because I had known her for so long, but she also has a lot of TiNe friends and the similarities were just starting to add up too well.

In general, when I type people, I don't have a person as possibly being one type and it's mirror, because I usually have a certain IME in place that would discount the mirror as a possibility. I usually have the creative/mobilizing IMEs figured out first, which would throw out the mirror typing; I believe the discussion we had over this was how typing by IMEs in functions wouldn't allow for certain type either-ors, such as someone saying "I can't tell if I'm NeFi or FeNi." Though, I'd be more willing to accept "I don't know if I'm NeFi or NiFe" over FiNe seeing that the blocks are all in the same configuration, just a different order.

[Skeptic]

What exactly do you mean by "Objective Typing" and what do you consider the "basics" of IAs, IMEs, and the functions? And what is the methodology of how you "simplify" peoples' actions, and how is this useful? I'm not trying to quiz-show you, I'm genuinely curious about this paragraph.

I'm not trying to objectively type, but get as close as I can. The fundamentals of types and functions I interpret as what is written on wikisocion; that is force, power, territory, Fe is focus on people, relationships and emotional atmosphere, etc. When I say simplify people's actions I mean getting to the origin of the action; why did they do this? What purpose did it serve for them? When you reduce their actions they more closely resemble the basic functions.

 

I am at a party and Sarah comes up to me and says 'John is upset and doesn't want anyone to talk to him'. I would ask myself; what is her motive in asking me this? Judging based on a number of factors including her tone, body language and past experience with her, I would try to understand what it is she's telling me and what function it is related to. Let's assume she was imploring and visibly upset. This would imply that she wants me to go cheer John up because he's lonely and sad. Her action is then related to . On the way to John (assuming we've attempted to cheer him up), she may say 'John is probably angry because he's had a lot to drink and spilt his drink on his couch'. What message is she giving now? It would appear that she is trying to find the source of John's anger by reviewing events in the past leading to the present. It would also appear that she thinks I need to know the cause and effect of John's actions in order to cheer him up. This I would associate with , though the phrase is admittedly ambiguous.

For this person I would tentatively consider beta NF. Many more interactions and experiences later I would conclude a type based on what I've seen of the person. Using the other method, you might conclude that she is beta NF for the same reasons and then make a mental note that beta NFs are concerned with how people are feeling at parties. This trait is not exclusive to beta NFs, however, so your understanding of socionics becomes flawed; it is the way in which she was concerned and how she handled it that points to beta NF.

From my understanding, this would cause a lot of trouble. First, you're typing by actions that you don't necessarily know the motivation behind, and because of your type, you seem them in a particular manner. Just as an example and not to drag through theory, you will have a hard time not rationalizing something under your leading IME and it's likely you will not be able to directly observe your Role IME without dedication; and you won't always be having this switch on. So you're always under the influence having an interpretation, putting aside the argument that your subjective understanding of Socionics is, well, subjective. It would take a good amount of time to know a person so well that you can detect their motives to explain each of their actions... I'm not sure, I'd like to hear why you came to this.

Your argument assumes that we need to use a certain IE in order to see that IE. I have always thought that you can see the same through and also through . Just because we're using different functions to interpret another doesn't mean our judgement is inherently wrong or biased.

And yes, there is room for error in that we are not always able to correctly find the motivation behind another's actions. Getting to understand people, the philosophy of language etc. will aid in this. The emphasis here is that we're bending people's actions to fit static socionic descriptions as opposed to bending socionics to meet the people.

Also, with this action reduction mentality my understanding of socionics doesn't go any further than what is officially written of socionics. And yes, you absolutely should get to know someone very very well before settling on a type for sure. Usually most people I know are confined to certain areas of certainty, like 'beta NF' or some sort of variation.

[mfckr]

.

[Skeptic]

I think it's easy to recognize non-valued functions through the absence of valued functions. That is, / most often comes across to me as something like "not-/". I also find it useful to treat functions in pairs like this… i.e. if someone seems valuing, they should necessarily show signs of -valuing as well if this is true. It's a simple measure that can help double-check a person's type.

But yeah. I agree w/ you that you don't need to use a certain IE in order to see the IE. All you need to do is learn how to recognize the symptoms of it. Just as say, a psychiatrist can recognize symptoms of schizophrenia without themselves being schizophrenic. However, being able to merely recognize an IE should not be mistaken for actually understanding the nature it…



I don't like this emphasis.



I also disagree with the idea that you need to 'know the person well' in order to type them. Typing is not that deep.

Hopefully there is little bending of anything and you are good at interpreting people's motives. If I had to make a mistake, I would rather it be seperate from socionics and more focused on the interpretation of another so that the mistake with socionics does not appear every time I try to type someone (i.e. concluding beta NFs are concerned with people's feelings at a party comes up every time you type a beta NF as opposed to concluding that the way a specific person was concerned with the party was beta NF). It's a case by case thing as opposed to universalizing the descriptions to meet all the beta NFs you know.

Knowing someone real well is what removes doubt. I'll always be doubtful of my typings unless I know them really well; so long as there is a small chance that I am wrong I will be doubtful.

[glam]

i don't really have a strict "method." i just use whatever i can to determine their Model A - i use different things (listed below) to try and determine IM preferences, functions, dichotomies, etc. to try and piece everything together.

for example i might observe that a person is extroverted, -superego, and strong in , so i'd conclude EIE. however if this was based on a relatively small amount of information i might not consider the typing to be that strong. but if i gather more and more information about a person that turns out to be consistent with the typing, it would only reinforce it. if the new information seems to conflict with my previous conclusion i may drop the typing and reconsider - whether it's the typing or my own understanding of things. generally, everything has to fit or it's hard for me to accept a clear typing. often i have someone's type narrowed down to a few options.

i look at different things, including but not necessarily limited to

- how they communicate and interact with others and their environment
- their relationships and the types of the people they are close to - friends, their significant other, etc.
- what causes them to arrive at their conclusions - determining their thought process
- their behaviors and preferences, if i can reasonably determine something type-related is manifesting itself
- their overall "vibe" and VI: body language, physical presence, expressions, demeanor, eye gaze, etc.
- my own reaction to them
- how they compare to other people i have typed

i don't force typings. if i can't get readings on someone then i accept that i don't know their type for the time being. sometimes people strongly come across as a certain type to me even when i wasn't necessarily trying to type them.

no typings are set in stone for me - i'll most likely never be 100% sure of someone's type and don't care to be. my typings are always subject to change.

i use the 2-subtype system when i can recognize them. a lot of times i can determine someone's type but they may not come across as a certain subtype so i simply don't give them one. i don't find it extremely important to assign subtypes.

regarding other people's opinions: other people's typings (or the person's own self-typing, if available) can give me some kind of a starting point to work with, though in the end i mostly rely on my own understanding of things to type, and to determine whether i agree with someone else's analysis or typing. if there is a consensus on someone's type, and i happen to have an unpopular opinion that i'm reasonably convinced of, that doesn't really affect my own typing much. i just think everyone else is wrong, until something convinces me otherwise.

also sometimes someone else's thoughts/analyses on someone's type, or socionics in general, may resonate with me; i find them very perceptive and i use them to improve my own understanding; and others' i just don't find that impressive or insightful and i find them easy to dismiss. i'm not sure yet exactly what causes this difference in my reactions.

[WVBRY]

Mind giving some examples on what these sort of trends are? Are there some types of trends that are more influential on your typing than others? And what are the differences between the MBTI types and Socionics types, that you've noticed, in practice? Do ENTPs tend to be NeTi, etc?

When I started with MBTI I didnt type people according to it. So this having started with socionics, I found myself typing based on functions right away.

[consentingadult]

Mind explaining this in a little more detail? I'm unfamiliar with what you're talking about.

It is similar to what Jarno said: in my mind (mind actually isn't the right word, but I don't know a better one) I have 'knowledge' on various types, and I type someone else by means of the 'feelings' (again: for lack of a better word) they invoke in me. So unlike Jarno, it's not how they look or behave, it's the gut response they invoke in me. This response almost always involves a value judgment of some kind, but it is not something rational (in the non-socionc sense) or cognitive.

ETA: it's not just what feelings other people invoke in me, but also my response to it in terms of action/non-action.

Transference - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[DividedsGhost]

When I try to apply socionics, I try to keep in mind what socionics is. (information metabolism; essentially, what people are aware of and focus on.) I then look for anything which might signify key aspects of an element. What does this person focus on? How do their thoughts reflect their focus? How do their actions reflect their focus? I try to get into people's motivations and thoughts and derive where those motivations might have come from. A lot of the time it's unclear as a single action could the result of many different motivations, and motivation from many different awarenesses. I keep in mind that getting into people's heads is not easy, and often impossible unless they're willing to bring you in. I rely on my ability interpret the reasoning of things and people's vibes, but it's a constant battle of building up and then breaking down the conclusions I come to. Over time I've begun to realize the impracticality of trying to do quick typings, and I only give typings weight in situations where I'm able to get really close to a person and be sure I know them at a deep level.

Really the only thing of practical use I get out of socionics on a daily bases is the realization that people just have different ways of thinking about things and a way to try to rationalize it. I might assign a type or traits of a type to a person in order to understand where their coming from and adjust my perspective in order reach a compromise in situations of misunderstanding or general disagreement. But, often these traits I assign to the person are temporary in order to get through the misunderstanding. Assigning a permanent type to someone takes a long time and generally just doesn't happen as it's too impractical to come to any finalized sense of certainty that I have figured out their true type. There are a number who I will give provisional types to, but they're all very subject to change, and I really don't give any weight to the typing making it essentially pointless.

Freaking excellent . To expect anything more than the bold is a waste of effort. The study of human relationships and information metabolism is an always changing study.

I would say I have found it most useful to just keep a basic easily adaptive model in mind for predicting behavior and motivation where I don't go overboard on trying to apply complex logistical systems that attempt to explain everything by putting people into static types. It will never work; it is just not worth the effort.

That said, in the short immediate term, I mostly look for situations where people are displaying leadingFunction-seekingFunction dynamics, as well as where people are utilizing their demonstrative function. In the long term, I look for inter-type relations and PoLR; and if that checks out, then I decide on leading and creative functions. That has been most reliable and rewarding for me in understanding and working with other people because these things tend to be somewhat variable in the short-terms among many people, depending on the situation. Of course, at other times, and usually in the long term, if the inter-type relations and PoLR are there, then I apply an overall type as most efficient in understanding. But basically, the more complex the motivations, the hazier everything becomes so I prefer to keep things situational (even when I have typed them) rather than static, unless the static has been shown to be quite probable. A static type for me would imply that the PoLR of the person typed has been mostly show to be stereotypical or extreme and that the inter-type relations are there to back them up, showing a clear particular leading and creative functional orientation.

[Mattie]

I somehow forgot about this thread lol I must have read it before leaving for somewhere and never saw new replies, sorry for disappearing

I'm not trying to objectively type, but get as close as I can. The fundamentals of types and functions I interpret as what is written on wikisocion; that is force, power, territory, Fe is focus on people, relationships and emotional atmosphere, etc. When I say simplify people's actions I mean getting to the origin of the action; why did they do this? What purpose did it serve for them? When you reduce their actions they more closely resemble the basic functions.

I was more wanting to understand what you meant by the term rather than question your intentions. I agree with the premise of wanting to find out how to objectively type as possible, and I can't really argue against your method. It's not exactly how I came to finding what is "objective," I also am curious to know how confident you are at guessing at peoples' intentions and motives, as that's something I don't feel comfortable doing because I can see people going so many different ways... Reminds me of another thread, and it seemed to be a vs difference, which I can understand. I don't think I personally would have came to either method you described in your example, I find behaviors and actions to be a hint but not good enough evidence. For me it's teasing out a person's thought processes and see the how and why they came to a reasoning or observation. My poor best friend is subject to many different strange questions as I like to understand how different her thought process is from mine.

Your argument assumes that we need to use a certain IE in order to see that IE. I have always thought that you can see the same through and also through . Just because we're using different functions to interpret another doesn't mean our judgement is inherently wrong or biased.

I didn't mean it that way, I meant that you always have the lens of certain IMEs on. So if you're -leading, you're naturally going to see things existing in context before you go about identifying certain behavior, especially when something catches you off guard. I don't think you have to be a certain type to conceptualize the type's process (in a basic abstract sense, of course). So I don't think it's impossible, but I think you have to go through an extra step, you have to realize that from the beginning, you've been building your understanding through your type... I only brought it up because I personally felt the method you described would fall prey to that, but I can't say that my method escapes such pitfalls either.

I think it's easy to recognize non-valued functions through the absence of valued functions. That is, / most often comes across to me as something like "not-/". I also find it useful to treat functions in pairs like this… i.e. if someone seems valuing, they should necessarily show signs of -valuing as well if this is true. It's a simple measure that can help double-check a person's type.

I've heard this from a couple of other people, but I can't seem to do this. I always spot the existence of something rather than the nonexistence. And I tend to piece things together IME by IME.

I also disagree with the idea that you need to 'know the person well' in order to type them. Typing is not that deep.

To add onto this, sometimes knowing a person too well can be a hindrance. I think knowing people well is needed by Skeptic's typing method, because they have to understand a person's motivations as connected to IMEs. I would say I don't need to know the person well because I have an idea how to type someone by what they are actively doing without needing to know (a large amount) of their thoughts that they don't express.

however if this was based on a relatively small amount of information i might not consider the typing to be that strong. but if i gather more and more information about a person that turns out to be consistent with the typing, it would only reinforce it. if the new information seems to conflict with my previous conclusion i may drop the typing and reconsider - whether it's the typing or my own understanding of things. generally, everything has to fit or it's hard for me to accept a clear typing. often i have someone's type narrowed down to a few options.

[...]

i don't force typings. if i can't get readings on someone then i accept that i don't know their type for the time being. sometimes people strongly come across as a certain type to me even when i wasn't necessarily trying to type them.

no typings are set in stone for me - i'll most likely never be 100% sure of someone's type and don't care to be. my typings are always subject to change.

I'm generally like this as well, I'll have a "working" type that I try to have the person "wear", and they wear it until something comes to contradict it, and then I'll switch the type. I think because I don't talk about Socionics too often offline, I never have a person's type as 100% solid, and don't feel pressured to report types.

regarding other people's opinions: other people's typings (or the person's own self-typing, if available) can give me some kind of a starting point to work with, though in the end i mostly rely on my own understanding of things to type, and to determine whether i agree with someone else's analysis or typing. if there is a consensus on someone's type, and i happen to have an unpopular opinion that i'm reasonably convinced of, that doesn't really affect my own typing much. i just think everyone else is wrong, until something convinces me otherwise.

also sometimes someone else's thoughts/analyses on someone's type, or socionics in general, may resonate with me; i find them very perceptive and i use them to improve my own understanding; and others' i just don't find that impressive or insightful and i find them easy to dismiss. i'm not sure yet exactly what causes this difference in my reactions.

I'm pretty much the same way, but my opinion of this person and how they are in multiple realms greatly affects how I deal with information coming from them.

It is similar to what Jarno said: in my mind (mind actually isn't the right word, but I don't know a better one) I have 'knowledge' on various types, and I type someone else by means of the 'feelings' (again: for lack of a better word) they invoke in me. So unlike Jarno, it's not how they look or behave, it's the gut response they invoke in me. This response almost always involves a value judgment of some kind, but it is not something rational (in the non-socionc sense) or cognitive.

I see, the "database" method is rather unintuitive for me, as I see too many nuances with every individual to really have a chunk of them in a category and have them as models. I always start with a gut feeling, like you, but I never end on it.

I would say I have found it most useful to just keep a basic easily adaptive model in mind for predicting behavior and motivation where I don't go overboard on trying to apply complex logistical systems that attempt to explain everything by putting people into static types. It will never work; it is just not worth the effort.

I'm starting to find that I don't really have a model at all... Just a whole bunch of terms with definitions and combinations that I check against what I've observed. I think if I was (for some reason) had no lead about someone and I couldn't get a gut vibe to guide me initially, I would just through every IA and function combination at them until I see a pattern or get a lead.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[blankblank]

I would say I benefited by understanding that certain things people said (like my best friend) weren't being rude, malicious, or intentionally difficult, and I apply Socionics to discern this. I also use it to adjust how I explain things as well, and to anticipate certain issues and prepare for them.

That's how I would like to be able to use socionics and other personality theories.

[Mattie]

Going along with this thread's theme, I was hoping to jump-start more of an active interest in maintaining the wiki we have, at least creating pages that outline our view on how we approach Socionics; this will not only help us think critically of our own methods, but also give us the opportunity to be exposed to others' ideas that might not be concisely presented here on the forum. I have my methodology and opinions more explicitly here: User:Mattie - Wikisocion

[silverchris9]

Okay. So, here's how I type.

I sort of don't think about socionics for a person until they do something that sparks a possible typing in my mind. What sorts of things spark typings? Well, it could be that I notice them dominating the atmosphere or flitting around the room in a very Fe way. Or it could be that I notice them in a relationship and think, "hm, could they be duals?" Or it could be that I see them sort of... instinctively or naturally standing up and taking charge of a situation and I think "Hm, possible Se ego?" Or maybe they do something that makes me think of a specific quadra. Regardless, that's how I do my initial typing.

So once I have this initial vague typing, I start looking for evidence for and against. Probably the first test is that I look at intertype relationships and try to type people around them. Sometimes (and I should do this more often, 'cause it's a potentially great method), I try other types on them and see how well the models of the other type fits with their behavior (a note on behavior later, maybe). One of my best tests is to alter my behavior to suit whatever type I think the person is. For instance, if I suspect that they're an Fi-valuer rather than an Fe-valuer, I try to tone down the Fe, not emphasize the facial expressions so much (when I first encounter someone, one of my first instincts is to really turn on the juice Fe-wise, 'cause I find that many people are receptive to that. Could also have something to do with having a Ti-leading father. Shrug.) And I almost always have my Se-Si sort of on a slider from intense motion Se to calm homeostatic Si (Se is as interested in causing change, i.e., disrupting homeostasis, as Si is in preventing excessive change, i.e., maintaining homeostasis. I think Se/Ni, especially beta, could be renamed "A New Homeostasis," a quest for a balance that is essentially unreachable). So anyway, I try to adjust my behavior to what I think may be the person's type, and if they respond favorably, that's good evidence for whatever socionics thing (e.g., preferred feeling function, quadra) I'm testing for at the moment.

I do ultimately try to base my typings on how people actually behave in the world interacting with other people. Of course habitual behaviors are emphasized over one-time things, and alternative socionics "explanations" for certain behaviors do have to be considered. But ultimately, I want to base my decision as to what type to label a person in my head (since that's going to affect my behavior towards them in many cases) on how the person actually acts. And I don't think it's at all bad or inaccurate typing to focus initially on behavior. If the person is a naturally take charge person, if they shine in situations where they can sort of take over and drive the ship, and furthermore, if they're not timid about it (or don't show any timidity anyway), Se-ego is a good initial guess. You do have to go back and look at the evidence. If they're like this, but they're getting along fantastically with every alpha and delta you know, and pretty poorly with all the gammas and betas you know, then it's time to seriously consider a different typing. But as long as you're weighing the available evidence, and always going back to say "how well does this model (socionics) fit reality (the person's behavior)?" then you should be fine, in my opinion.

I do want to emphasize that no action constrains type. There's not any one action that can make me absolutely rule out a type for a person. But there are actions that make me require very strong evidence to counterbalance them. For instance, if a person is constantly focused on organizing things the best way, maximizing efficiency, always being annoyed at people who don't pay enough attention to detail, people who disrupt the well-oiled machine... then it's going to take them getting along really really well with some Beta STs and pretty poorly with some Delta STs for me to see them as IEI.

Also, I'm always open to questioning someone's type, even if after I've had it settled in my mind for a while. For instance, there's a person I've long typed as IEE-Fi. But I notice her getting along extremely well with an IEI and an LSI. And that's strange, right? To have a good relationship with your conflictor? So now I'm considering an alpha type. On the other hand, should, after analysis, IEE continue to be the most logical typing (as I suspect it is; she is very much an Fi-valuer, and I don't really notice any Se from her), then I'm going to have to update my view of intertype relations, and perhaps spend some time thinking about this particular set of relations, specifically the relationship between her and the LSI (whose type I should also question, but you know, if he turns out to be LSI too), to try to figure out what it is about this conflict relation that makes it comparatively easy to deal with.


EDIT: Also, Ashton, something of a semantics question: who says that behavior is what and not how? Although I do think that "what" can be useful in typing as well, and also that the while the predictive accuracy of "what" is lower than "how," the power of an accurate prediction about what a person will do in a given situation is much higher than a prediction about how. And there's not really a clear line between "what" and "how" is there? A specific enough "what" is the same as a "how" about a broader "what". Complicated enough?


EDIT 2: And again, since this is really sort of in my head: sure, socionics is a theory of cognition, but we don't have access to cognition. There is no way for one human being to know what is going on in another human being's head. It's hard enough (maybe impossible) to know what's going on in our own heads. So obviously we have to use something to deduce cognition. Since we don't have direct, experiential access to others' cognition, we have to make some guesses. Upon what basis do we make those guesses? Behavior. How a person acts in an environment in which he or she has to interact with one or more other persons. Maybe even reports of how they deal with themselves. But it comes down to some action, even if the action is speech, that the individual performs in a social environment, even if the "social environment" is only writing (which is solitary), because writing implies an audience, and is thereby transformed into a social environment. It must be something someone does directed outward, towards the world outside the self (even if it's only talking), that must be the basis for our inquiry into anything about them, from clinical psychology to socionics. In that sense, socionics must be concerned about behavior, because behavior is the only way to deduce cognition.

Now, I know some things you might not consider "behavior" in a colloquial sense, e.g., sitting on a therapist's couch and answering questions. But especially given that we don't usually have the opportunity to interview people about how they think for the sake of determining their type, it's all the more important to realize that some sort of behavior is the window through which we must look (darkly) to see into cognition, in at least 90% of cases.

[mu4]

My typing methodology.

I go with my gut then I test it.

If I don't have a idea of the type, I investigate until I do, then I test it.

[moredhel]

Hi everyone,

Reading through these forums it's obvious that typing people is a big part of the socionics community. What I have also noticed is people approach it very differently and come to some vastly different conclusions.

So this is how I type people...

• First step get a vibe of their quadra
  
  Alpha=easy going social types, Beta= passionate social types Delta= Easy going serious types, Gamma=Passionate serious types. (This is very rough, my vibe is actually a bit more detailed but it wasn't translating well to text.)

• If it isn't obvious consider their quadra more closely
  
  The quadra's are all very different from one another so I find it is a good place to start, as I only need to consider a small subset of socionics theory. As I tend to type people based on my social interaction with them I consider the following things.
  
  • Do they prefer large groups or small groups? (can be misleading)
  • Do they go with the flow of the group or do they try to steer the group?
  • Are the often animated/passionate?
  • Are they competitive?
  • Do they have strong opinions about people? If so are they likely to express these opinions?
  • Do they prefer practical discussions or "fun" discussions?
    etc...(there's more I was getting bored)

• If I know them well enough I would next choose their romance type.
• Once I have decided on a quadra I decide within the context of their quadra are they introverted or extroverted.
• If I couldn't figured out their romance type I will decide if they are more ethical or logical.
• This should leave me with 1 type.
• Lastly I consider if the social roles and cognitive function placement fit.
  
  If yes it should be a puzzle piece moment like "yes they are defiantly this type". If it's a maybe I would place a tentative type and observe them bit more or consider close alternatives. If it's no I will revise the previous steps and consider where I may of made an incorrect assumption or observation.

I find this to be a very efficient method and easy as the information on quadra's focuses a lot on group behavior which is the context In which I do most of my typing. It is quite a quick process of elimination. In terms of accuracy I found I could type all of my close friends and I could type about 40% of my acquaintances/friends who I didn't have a 1on1 relationship with while at least getting as far as quadras on the rest.

I only consider relationships after I've decided on a type and I will not type a person based on a relationship (either to me or between people i'm typing). I will also try not to give types value, IMO all types are equal.

So how do other people type and do you feel that method/ability in typing could be related to type?
I feel the above is a very Te method very efficient without having to use detail unless i'm not getting that puzzle piece moment.

[woofwoofl]

Holy crap, I really like the descriptions you have of the quadras

As for me, I go for what sticks out the most - can I spot an axis of Perceiving functions (Judicious/Decisive Reinin)? Judging functions (Merry/Serious Reinin)? Democratic or Aristocratic? Temperament (getting halfway there on this one is good too)?

I'll nail down what I can nail down, nail down a few things I can't nail down, and remember which is which, so that if I need to change a thing, I'll know what to change...

[moredhel]

Holy crap, I really like the descriptions you have of the quadras

As for me, I go for what sticks out the most - can I spot an axis of Perceiving functions (Judicious/Decisive Reinin)? Judging functions (Merry/Serious Reinin)? Democratic or Aristocratic? Temperament (getting halfway there on this one is good too)?

I'll nail down what I can nail down, nail down a few things I can't nail down, and remember which is which, so that if I need to change a thing, I'll know what to change...

Yeah the quadra Dichotomies are good and I use them in my "vibe" thinking.
I'm relatively comfortable with the expanded quadra explanations so I tend to check off my questions quite quickly in my head.

I have trouble typing with Democratic/Aristocratic axis as i'm not really comfortable with how it visibly manifests itself in peoples behavior, beyond putting people in groups vs judging everyone individually that is.

Temperaments are good but I haven't looked into going beyond Ix vs Ex and I wouldn't necessarily trust the result if I was able to.

[mfckr]

.