If you can't type yourself, it's ridiculous to think you can type other people correctly.
If you can't type yourself, it's ridiculous to think you can type other people correctly.
"Language is the Rubicon that divides man from beast."
Actually, no. Sometimes when you're too close to a person and have too much non-socionics stuff invested in a particular typing, it can be easier to mistype because you can't get enough objectivity or you can't get those other factors out of your head. This is also why it's hard to type family members.
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.
I agree with the statement and see nothing wrong with it.
Removed at User Request
Why? Its a purely Ti based decision.
If you can type a person based on what little information you receive from them just by observing them, you can type yourself on the basis of the same information by observing your own behavior and habits.
You always have more information about yourself than you have about any other person. The amount of information is several orders of magnitude greater in most cases.
Removed at User Request
Not really. I think that oneself is going to be more difficult to type than others in a lot of ways because it's harder to see oneself from the outside having to experience all the ever-changing thoughts and feelings inside one's mind constantly. It's easy to lose objectivity concerning oneself I think.
ILE "Searcher"
Socionics: ENTp
DCNH: Dominant --> perhaps Normalizing
Enneagram: 7w6 "Enthusiast"
MBTI: ENTJ "Field Marshall" or ENTP "Inventor"
Astrological sign: Aquarius
To learn, read. To know, write. To master, teach.
Se Se Se Se Se Se SE SEE SE SEE !!! :bighugz:
Not having to know anything personal about someone... well wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that knowing everything personal about yourself could possibly um muddy up the waters in trying to type yourself... or at best be rather irrelevant information then?
Yeah!
"Language is the Rubicon that divides man from beast."
I agree. Although bear in mind that people who "know" their type, don't know their type at all. Not all of them, but ...
Neither agree nor disagree. I think it makes it less likely to type others correctly, especially if you're trying to figure out relations at the same time. Though it's perfectly possible that someone who isn't sure of their type will be capable of more accurate typing than someone who knows their type, but for example believes a lot of stereotypes. In general, I'm highly suspicious of any claims that include a lot of typings and little understanding of socionics, especially newbies who ask about basic concepts and describe their relations with people of various types at the same time. It's ridiculous because if you don't understand the theory, the only way you can type is by stereotypes associated with given type or quadra, or some other group, and on top of that, you probably don't understand its influence on relations either. Some may claim that without starting to type people, one won't understand the theory in the first place, and they may have a point - but there's a pattern of people's early typings being very often wrong, and unless they're tentative to begin with, they only lead to further misconceptions.
To make the long story short, both ability to type yourself and to type others are correlated with understanding of socionics.
Like I explained, you are going to color information through your leading IME. Again, for example, the odd numbered IMEs will be filtered through your leading IME, so if you're not aware of your leading IME when typing, you will be overlooking and rationalizing certain types of IAs out of their context unbeknownst.
I touched upon it here:
Understanding how I process information and therefore how I react to the use of certain information keeps me aware of how I influence another person (so, when I use on a valuer, the reaction will most likely be different from those who value , but if I didn't know that, well...) when typing. Seeing how my type fits me, what it's "jurisdiction," if you will, is, allows me to understand what is applicable to type others. For instance, knowing my type, I can tell in retrospect that if someone was to type me by my behaviors the past couple of years, I wouldn't have been strongly typed NeFi, but most likely one of the -leads, which I find to be more distant than NeTi or SeFi. So, understanding how my type fits me, what is related and not related allows me to apply that to others. With someone who doesn't know what is and is not type related about themselves, they most likely can't understand what is and isn't type related about others.
Uhh, how does it not? If you understand that you are more likely to notice something and not notice other things, you will be on the look out. If you realize that you find certain behaviors permissible and others not, how isn't that making you more aware? I don't know how you can say "I know my type, and know I have a certain bias, but I can't separate this bias from what I perceive." It's like saying you can never attempt to objectively analyze something. While I can understand a sort of knee-jerk ethnocentrism/subjectivity to how you perceive something, I assume when you're typing someone you're trying to do it in a manner that isn't entrenched by biases that can throw off your typing. Like looking for "evidence" that support your gut feelings.
No, the example is simplistic, but the idea isn't. Even if the theory is incorrect, it still has a process and parameters that you can easily use to categorize whatever information is necessary. Socionics is outlining a particular set of qualities to be organized into what is a type, and everyone has these things to be organized. If people are "adaptive" enough to not know what their traits are, then that's an issue of being self-aware; that person still has a consistent set of qualities to be organized by Socionics, they aren't "special" in any way. Plus, your personality isn't what's being measured by Socionics, so if a person feels like they have a constantly shifting personality (which, actually, everyone does, which is why MBTI types tend to change over time), that doesn't factor into the "box" that Socionics is organizing you into.
I'm guessing this is different from person to person. What is me and not me is all one process for me. I feel like it's been a part of me for my whole life, and I understand others don't have the same ability or process. I tend to find those who are socially confident and adept tend to have a strong idea of what is and is not them, and when you have a working understanding of how you, as a defined whole, relates to everything else, you are less likely to get caught up on superficial details when trying to understand others, because you understand similar superficial details don't describe you wholly. My personal observations, of course.
Looking to my past posts and arguments, you'd know that I don't think Socionics encompasses us all, and as I've already mentioned here, isn't dictating our personalities. I don't think an understanding of Socionics leads to an understanding of yourself, completely that is. I find that Socionics is more of a reorganization of information I'm already aware of, that sets up a relationship between bits of information I didn't see before, not making me aware of said information. Which is why I included the second part in my original post, I think that if you're not already aware of this sort of information, you'll have trouble finding out what Socionics organizes.
Again, if you can't objectively or critically analyze something, that sounds like another issue all together. You CAN, momentarily, ignore that information. You'll definitely be like "But, well, this was because of this that can't be observed this way, and..." Well, that's not the point. And I'd agree that you can only go so far with another person this way. I would say typing by behaviors overall leads to this issue. The problem here is that the person cannot assign a value of relevance that each detail behind the behavior has; and I think that goes to self-awareness. Knowing what's relevant or not overall, to what's relevant or not to the type. If you can't tell what's relevant to a Socionics type for yourself, you can't tell what's relevant for someone else's Socionics type.
Last edited by Mattie; 09-11-2010 at 04:03 PM.
Understanding ≠ knowledge. You presume a very specific interpretation of "understanding".
Also, there might have been a reason I've mentioned not understanding socionics' influence on relations. I do think understanding and being able to type these is related - or at least correlated with - capability for typing people. If your best friend is in your opposing quadra, you're unlikely to get the relation right without actually looking at types. Most people would shoot at the same or neighbouring, at least. And I don't mean it as a specific case, but rather an illustration of a broader problem.
Understanding ≠ knowledge. I don't think it's possible to clearly define the understanding of anything. It's necessarily subjective as we can't even completely convey it. This is the same case as teaching - knowledge can be easily offered, understanding cannot, it's a matter of individual progress, even as parts of reasoning can.
Those are some good examples, though I'm not sure I agree completely with the one relating to strong and valued. In many ways it makes sense to me that unvalued elements would play a part.
It depends on how you type people. If you try to relate people to yourself, and you type mostly through subjective means, hell no you can't type people. LII who think they're ILI are not going to type people they really get along with as alphas. F types who think they're T types will have problems when comparing people to themselves and will likely type more people as T types by comparison. It's just not going to happen with subjective typings. If you type according to how a person fits descriptions of types/IEs etc, I see no reason why typing yourself is in any way related to how you type others.
Also sometimes a person's type is just unclear. Just how you might be not be sure whether a particular person is ILE or LII when typically you can easily distinguish the difference, you might not be sure of your own type.
But how is the fact that you do or don't get along with a person entirely subjective? Isn't it just something that can be quantified and established based on observations? And if this "fact" does not fit into the framework of determinations you have made about the types of the people in your surroundings, doesn't that signal that your self-typing is wrong?It depends on how you type people. If you try to relate people to yourself, and you type mostly through subjective means, hell no you can't type people. LII who think they're ILI are not going to type people they really get along with as alphas. F types who think they're T types will have problems when comparing people to themselves and will likely type more people as T types by comparison. It's just not going to happen with subjective typings. If you type according to how a person fits descriptions of types/IEs etc, I see no reason why typing yourself is in any way related to how you type others.
I just don't see how someone who types methodologically could end up mistyping him/herself when s/he gets the typings of others right. It's just another part of the picture, and it's the part you have the most information on by far.
LII-Ne
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
- Blair Houghton
Johari
What I mean by subjective is that typing with this method would require that you know your type. In other words, it's subject to you and your type.
You could establish, through observation, that someone is your dual for example, but this doesn't tell you their type unless you know your own. So in that case, of course you would need to know your type. But, if you aren't typing via relations then it doesn't matter if you can type yourself. That doesn't necessarily mean that the relationship doesn't fit. It just means that you haven't considered it in that particular typing.Isn't it just something that can be quantified and established based on observations? And if this "fact" does not fit into the framework of determinations you have made about the types of the people in your surroundings, doesn't that signal that your self-typing is wrong?
The fact is that you CAN type without relations, which people do all the time on this forum. As long as you are not typing via relations, it doesn't matter what type you think you are. Granted, accurate typings will include relations, but that's not always possible.I just don't see how someone who types methodologically could end up mistyping him/herself when s/he gets the typings of others right. It's just another part of the picture, and it's the part you have the most information on by far.
edit: All that said, I would be more likely to question someone who can't get their type right, but that doesn't mean that they can't type as well as someone who does have their type correctly.
Removed at User Request
Removed at User Request