Chatbox Test: Would you like to schedule a chat to help determine your type? During this test we will observe our intertype relations

[Nico1e]

I believe that the intertype relations are reliable enough that we can use them to help determine a person's type. For instance, if someone has your ignore function as their base function, you will often find yourself feeling a little bit bored, and the two of you will be lacking anything to say to each other. This is especially true with an Extinguishment relation. And all the other relations can be used this way, too, to provide information about people's types.

We will use one person whose type is well known and agreed upon. It doesn't just have to be a chat with me, although since this is my idea, I'm offering to be the person you chat with to test your type. Many people agree that my type really is a SLI, although there are a couple people (at least one) who disagree. So I can be used to test your interactions with a SLI, and see if they go as the intertype relations would predict. If they do not, we may want to question what your type is.

Anyone else want to do this? We'd have to schedule appointments at a particular time to chat. I'm on Eastern Standard Time. It would help if we had more testers besides just me, so that we can observe several different relations.

[EyeSeeCold]

I think you're Si ego > SLI > SEI.

[Codie]

Do you think that because the participant(s) would know it's an intertype experiment, they might put on an act?

[ashlesha]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observe...t_(psychology)

[Suz]

I believe that the intertype relations are reliable enough that we can use them to help determine a person's type. For instance, if someone has your ignore function as their base function, you will often find yourself feeling a little bit bored, and the two of you will be lacking anything to say to each other. This is especially true with an Extinguishment relation. And all the other relations can be used this way, too, to provide information about people's types.

We will use one person whose type is well known and agreed upon. It doesn't just have to be a chat with me, although since this is my idea, I'm offering to be the person you chat with to test your type. Many people agree that my type really is a SLI, although there are a couple people (at least one) who disagree. So I can be used to test your interactions with a SLI, and see if they go as the intertype relations would predict. If they do not, we may want to question what your type is.

Anyone else want to do this? We'd have to schedule appointments at a particular time to chat. I'm on Eastern Standard Time. It would help if we had more testers besides just me, so that we can observe several different relations.

What other observations have you made re: intertypes?

[Exodus]

Even better, video chat on stickam.

[ashlesha]

nicole- i didnt want to derail hkkmr's type thread but you asked a question there and this thread seemed like a good place to address it. re: people not "using" socionics and not listing their types under their names.

let's say i put LIE in my signature. bob the EII has an understanding of socionics which includes LIEs being intelligent and reasonable people. he talks to me as if i am an intelligent and reasonable person and treats me with respect because he expects that we will get along well. i respond in kind, reciprocating the respect, and treating him how i think an EII should be treated. on the other hand, lucy the ILE has an understanding of socionics which includes LIEs being miserly and boring. she avoids me and walks on eggshells around me. i respond, etc.

i think this is unavoidable to some extent - the same way what a stranger is wearing will cause you to have ideas about them is sort of unavoidable. at least clothing is something tangible and people could at least agree about the colors and thickness of the fabric, lol.

if there is anything at all to socionics i think it would manifest the most naturally for people who have never heard of it.

[Nico1e]

Putting on an act is included in their personality type. Putting on an act is just another part of who you are. It is part of being yourself. The type description will include what types of act they tend to put on when being watched.

That's the same as answering questions on a test, and answering them the way you think you *should* answer them, or answering them the way you *wish* you could be rather than the way you really are. I will be observing the correlation between the types of 'acts' people put on, the types they suspect that they are and wish they could be, the type descriptions they find most attractive, and the type that they seem to be based on their interaction with me.

The test concept is intended to be foolproof and to include all attempts at fake behavior. There is no such thing as fakeness. You can't fake something which is totally and completely outside of who you are.

The test taker will not be responsible for 'understanding the definitions of the words correctly.' For instance, if someone takes the Myers-Briggs test, but they don't understand the exact definition of the word as it was intended by the person who wrote the test, then the MBTI people's response is: That's your fault. Sucks to be you. You should be responsible for looking up each word in the dictionary while taking the test and then making sure that you fit into that category. If you can't do that, then it's your own fault that our test gave you the wrong answer.

I am taking the opposite attitude. The test must account for people's mistakes. It must tolerate the behavior of the real people and it must tolerate the fact that they have a hard time answering the questions or knowing what the questions mean. It must allow for the fact that people won't necessarily 'be themselves' during the test. We are, in fact, constantly being ourselves and are incapable of being anything else. So the type descriptions will include a section that says 'How does this type behave when it's anxious, self-conscious, and being watched?'

I'd write more... but I'm off to work, and I write too many giant walls of text anyway.

[Birdie]

I would be interested in this.

[ashlesha]

i agree with you that its impossible to not be yourself and its something ive taken solace in when this stuff has fucked with my head. but to be able to trace the behavior of other people in such minute detail to be able to tell what kind of persona they are adapting and why and how that relates to their type and affects intertype relations etc etc and to expect to be able to see this all accurately and reach foolproof results...the project youre describing sounds incredibly complicated and over reaching imo.

[Absurd]

The test concept is intended to be foolproof and to include all attempts at fake behavior. There is no such thing as fakeness. You can't fake something which is totally and completely outside of who you are.

You can fake it to achieve or get something, but it usually doesn't last long. I can do that with ease, but who in their right mind would want to stick with it, I don't know. It seems quite fake to me, I mean, you're just lying to yourself.

[Jarno]

when chatting some time with someone on msn messenger, I often get a pretty clear feeling of which type I'm talking too.

Either because it follows the pattern of similar type. Or because of relationship feeling.

I like to use the word feeling, cause that's heavely involved. It has nothing to do with ethical/logical etc.

[DirectorAbbie]

Yeah, I use the chatbox to determine type sometimes. I can be a tester if you like.

[Absurd]

when chatting some time with someone on msn messenger, I often get a pretty clear feeling of which type I'm talking too.

Do you get those feelings on a regular basis, like all the time, and are able to determine one's type ?

[Nico1e]

i agree with you that its impossible to not be yourself and its something ive taken solace in when this stuff has fucked with my head. but to be able to trace the behavior of other people in such minute detail to be able to tell what kind of persona they are adapting and why and how that relates to their type and affects intertype relations etc etc and to expect to be able to see this all accurately and reach foolproof results...the project youre describing sounds incredibly complicated and over reaching imo.

Complicated and overreaching is, indeed, the very heart and soul of the concept. I'm just very frustrated with a particular type of testing method, the tests that are designed like the MBTI. I've been complaining about the MBTI for years now. The MBTI people have no desire whatsoever to change anything about their test, so it's going to stay that way. Only a new, 'open-source' test can be made to do things differently.

I'd like to approach testing from a different direction. There will be some observing and gathering and recording of evidence. It will be a work in progress and it won't be perfect from the very first instant, but it will get better over time.

This is the description in my mind:

Everybody gets the correct result, the first time, every time.