Socionics "rating agency"

[1981slater]

My weird idea: there should be a rating agency to assess the credibility of certain typers. For instance, "Mr x's typings are reliable / AAA+, whereas Mr y's typings are junk bond".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_rating_agency

I can also recall the page rank algorithm, which can be used to assess the credibility of typings as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PageRank

Both ideas could be absolutely wrong, btw. For instance, the Innefable's typings could be 100% right, but as most users disagree with him, he does not have much credibility when it comes to typing. In a pagerank style assessment, controversial users would probably end up discredited. On the contrary, Ashton or Aestrivex typings are widely accepted by the Western Socionics Community.

[krieger]

i start my own agency and issue an F--- on Bolt.

small print: this is free speech and not sue-able

[1981slater]

i start my own agency and issue an F--- on Bolt.

small print: this is free speech and not sue-able

Aleksei or Maritsa's typings are rather controversial too. So, if we want to endow typings with some kind of "rigor", we should discuss this idea.

[FDG]

Aestrivex typings are widely accepted by the Western Socionics Community.

WHAT!

Anyway, good idea.

[1981slater]

Another idea, give more credibility to typings which steam from real life meetings. Who knows who IRL? Let's call the typings of those users the "basecamp", our axioms.
Those typings would have more weight than those related with chatting online and such.

Define a core group in which everybody knowns everybody IRL and let them type the rest of the community, or something.

I think that the endless "what's my type 17 edition" threads are rather useless.

[Trevor]

[1981slater]

"I have chatted online with x": weight= 0.5
"I have talked IRL with x": weight=0.75
"I have lived with that fucker for years, I know that little bastard": weight=1

[FDG]

"I have chatted online with x": weight= 0.5
"I have talked IRL with x": weight=0.75
"I have lived with that fucker for years, I know that little bastard": weight=1

So, everyone whose type is doubted shall let his girlfriend-boyfriend-wife-husband subscribe to the forum?

[1981slater]

Aestrivex typings are widely accepted by the Western Socionics Community.

WHAT!

Anyway, good idea.

That's the point. I agree with him, whereas you don't. Aestrivex gets one vote from me, none from you. If both of you agree with me, I get two votes and therefore the first vote I gave to Aestrivex has more weight than the others, etc.

[1981slater]

"I have chatted online with x": weight= 0.5
"I have talked IRL with x": weight=0.75
"I have lived with that fucker for years, I know that little bastard": weight=1

So, everyone whose type is doubted shall let his girlfriend-boyfriend-wife-husband subscribe to the forum?

This reminds me what you said to me a few weeks ago: differences in age and being a part of the same family distorts typings as well.

[Pa3s]

A good thing would be a "typing authority" of professionals who can define practical guidelines for typing. There are many different approaches, even here among us amateurs. This makes it pretty complicated to find common ground and we start to distinguish between Ashton's, Niffweed's, Maritsa's, Aleksei's typings ect.

[Igxfl]

WHAT!

Anyway, good idea.

That's the point. I agree with him, whereas you don't. Aestrivex gets one vote from me, none from you. If both of you agree with me, I get two votes and therefore the first vote I gave to Aestrivex has more weight than the others, etc.

This approach easily leads to several groups of typists who share methods and opinions. Everyone agrees with and rates those of their own group, who they usually agree with, highly and those of other groups, who occasionally contradict them, poorly. There's no way to tell which is correct and which is a bunch of idiots being wrong in the same way. I guess it could help to start by giving a few trusted members a high (and temporarily invincible) credit rating by fiat, to get the ball roling, but then the credit ratings will mostly reflect their opinons, and we could just ask them about types.

[Crispy]

I already have a built in rating system in my personal judgment. Works prettyyyyyy, prettty good.

[WVBRY]

I dont know what to think of this. I see no need for it as it only exacserbates sores and tensions between individual users of this community, which only leads to hostility and jealousy. While I cant see this as a bad thing in and of itself, if people have common sense theyll know whos typings to trust without some system to tell them who "right" in this matter. I dunno...it seems like doing the thinking for the individual, who needs to do more thinking for his/herself, if anything. And if they cant figure out whos typings are good and bad...well thats probably because they deserve to be fooled by someone who types badly. *shrug*

[Absurd]

[Jarno]

Good idea.

Shall we bring up the members list, so we can put our A B and C ratings behind them?

[Trevor]

Yes.

FDG - A

[tcaudilllg]

Why not let's have two rep systems?

- One for Fe
- One for Ti

[Galen]

And who, may I ask, gets to determine this rating system?

[Ozz]

And who, may I ask, gets to determine this rating system?

We can borrow from the real life. Let's form "The 16 Types Society". It'll be really democratic and each person will get one vote. We'll have an annual general meeting and elect directors. We'll run debates and committees and whoever is the best orator and consensus builder will have huge influence over the final system we come up with. It'll be just like real life.

[Creepy-male]

I made a spreadsheet, fill it out and I'll run an analysis to see how well people match up, all you have to do is click a link and type your typings into cells

[MisterNi]

I like the idea, but who would maintain the worthiness of the ratings? Someone would need to be constantly upgrading and downgrading typing ability. Also, what are the agreed upon metrics to determine the accuracy? Will these metrics also be updated as newer methods are discovered?

Again, it's a good idea and everything but creating a trust authority might be an idea that's a bit ahead of its time for western socionics as typing in its current form can hardly be considered scientific or even quantifiable.

[Marie84]

I think everyone pretty much has some sort of internal filter to choose who they see as reliable and not without needing a popularity system instated, which doesn't actually prove anything.
A more useful indicator could be to have users add somewhere the approach that they use, so that users who are less knowledgeable with the members here and have a preference for one school of thought over another can differentiate who to take more seriously.
Although I think eventually most people catch onto this naturally

[Bluenoir]

This sounds like a completely arbitrary popularity contest.

Define a core group in which everybody knowns everybody IRL and let them type the rest of the community, or something

What for, and why should anyone accept this core group as an authority?

To "reward" members with views that conform, and try to bring fringe opinions in line

The inquistion is upon us!

[Jonathan]

The Russians have already figured this out. They rate people based on how well their typings correlate with the group as a whole. It would also be good to subdivide it via some sort of factor analysis or cluster analysis....because one would find that there are certain "schools" where some people within that school have a high correlation.

Another very interesting way to do it is with multidimensional scaling. Based on people's ratings of a set group of people, dots representing the raters could be placed on a 2-dimensional map where people who rate similarly will appear next to each other. People who are more "mainstream" in their typings will probably appear in the center. There's software to do this.

The point is, only such statistical approaches which measure similarities between raters would work....because as soon as you appoint an "authority," that skews things because probably the authority is wrong (or many people will disagree" and then the authority will sanction only people within that "school."

The other approach is to do studies on how well people's ratings adequately predict intertype relations, but that's rather time-consuming and complicated to implement.

[krieger]

it seems to me you could pretty much deduce mechanically what one person's rating is toward another based on how many of their typings overlap. in the end it would not add any new information beyond the influence of silly drama, squabbles and favoritism.

[Jarno]

Yes.

FDG - A

Funny I was thinking that too.

[FDG]

Thanks guys, I didn't expect that : )

[Raver]

My mind is telling me that a rating agency or a page rank would be a good idea. However my gut is giving me a bad feeling about this.

[Ozz]

My textbook says the Delphi method is the best way to get the correct answer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delphi_method

[tcaudilllg]

And who, may I ask, gets to determine this rating system?

We can borrow from the real life. Let's form "The 16 Types Society". It'll be really democratic and each person will get one vote. We'll have an annual general meeting and elect directors. We'll run debates and committees and whoever is the best orator and consensus builder will have huge influence over the final system we come up with. It'll be just like real life.

This couldn't POSSIBLY go wrong!

[Creepy-male]

I will probably develop a system that takes typings from the spreadsheet, then compares two people against each other in terms of correlation.

Further I will do an overall average of the community.

From there it will be easy to find the outliers and any "groupings" of people who type alike.

No quantification of course will be perfect as you have to make assumptions, but it will easily illuminate any hidden trends and maybe confirm some long held suspicions.

[1981slater]

That's the point. I agree with him, whereas you don't. Aestrivex gets one vote from me, none from you. If both of you agree with me, I get two votes and therefore the first vote I gave to Aestrivex has more weight than the others, etc.

This approach easily leads to several groups of typists who share methods and opinions. Everyone agrees with and rates those of their own group, who they usually agree with, highly and those of other groups, who occasionally contradict them, poorly. There's no way to tell which is correct and which is a bunch of idiots being wrong in the same way. I guess it could help to start by giving a few trusted members a high (and temporarily invincible) credit rating by fiat, to get the ball roling, but then the credit ratings will mostly reflect their opinons, and we could just ask them about types.

Yes, that could happen.

I like the idea, but who would maintain the worthiness of the ratings? Someone would need to be constantly upgrading and downgrading typing ability. Also, what are the agreed upon metrics to determine the accuracy? Will these metrics also be updated as newer methods are discovered?

Again, it's a good idea and everything but creating a trust authority might be an idea that's a bit ahead of its time for western socionics as typing in its current form can hardly be considered scientific or even quantifiable.

I think pagerank is updated every few days or so.

This sounds like a completely arbitrary popularity contest.

Define a core group in which everybody knowns everybody IRL and let them type the rest of the community, or something

What for, and why should anyone accept this core group as an authority?

To "reward" members with views that conform, and try to bring fringe opinions in line

The inquistion is upon us!

You haven't even bothered to understand how pagerank works. I know it can mislead us and we could end up embracing what a group of wrong typers think. Regarding people who know other users irl, I assume these people can type each other with more credibility than "online typers".

My textbook says the Delphi method is the best way to get the correct answer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delphi_method

How could this work?

Let's type user x. We get 5 ILE typings, 3 LII, 1 ILI and 1 LIE. Round two, 7 ILE, 2 LIE and 1 LII. Round three, 8 ILE, 2 LIE. Round four, 8 ILE, 2 LIE. The algorith has converged. So, the majority chooses ILE. End of story.?????

[Brilliand]

Pagerank sounds good to me, but it's too complex to do by hand. It would need to be automated. Also, I suppose all participants would have to manually input what they think of each other. To be very close to PageRank but work well on a small scale, the rating might be between 0 and 5 inclusive, with 0 being totally neutral (no negative ratings). In order for the results to be authoritative, we would need nearly every possible expert to participate...

[Gilly]

This is a really good idea.

[Beautiful sky]

@ OP,

LOLOLOLOLOLOLO.....ROFL ROFL

AWESOME IDEA

[tcaudilllg]

It's so much easier to type a person at the EM and IM levels together, than trying to look at one or the other.