let's discuss this phenomenon.
let's discuss this phenomenon.
model Φ: -+0
sloan - rcuei
ahem. what does this mean
maybe a saint is just a dead prick with a good publicist
maybe tommorow's statues are insecure without their foes
go ask the frog what the scorpion knows
"...for example by determining if a particular scale is appropriate for measuring a particular variable. If various raters do not agree, either the scale is defective or the raters need to be re-trained."
Since x experienced user and y experienced user do not agree on their typings:
a) one of them, at least, is an idiot
b) Socionics is crap
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.
You really need the raters to initially do the rating independently or in seperate groups to avoid groupthink.
When I've done Cohen's Kappa, we'd start with a discussion to try to clarify what it is we're looking for, followed by independent coding and a discussion of the results to find out why we differed,
I'd imagine that across the board reliability on this forum would be pretty iffy, mainly due to the omplexities of inferring individual types from, complex human behaviour expressed in written text.
However it may perhaps be interesting to post a high queality video of someone, who is unaware of socionics but is at the same time giving rich and socionically valuable information. The types could then submit privately their opinions on the individuals type/ and or the varius dichotomies/groups. This information could be analysed statistically to measure reliability and repeated with different individuals.
It woud also perhaps be interesting to give the participant a test after the intervoew or allow them to select a type which they think suits them the most, to measure the correlation, between this and the results of the coders.
if b happens to be true, then we are all 100% idiots for choosing to play.
if a happens to be true, then we are only an idiot if we are wrong.
The relative probability that we are idiots is 3/4 or 75% for choosing to play socionics. Now start to add in facets of meta-cognition that leads to philosophical inquiry and the potential to supersede our propensities in completely unpredictable and new ways; you will find that the relative probability that we are an idiot, for playing socionics, slowly increases from 75% on its convergence path to 100%. Then the relative probability leaves no room for bias error and becomes the absolute probability of 100%. FUN
Having my math degree from a public uni and being a sloppy student on top of that, I'm at a loss to formulate the necessary as opposed to some sufficient condition, anyone who can in a concise and simple to understand way is welcome to do so.
Last edited by ragnar; 11-24-2011 at 11:48 PM. Reason: typo 16 vs 6
c. The subject is hard to analyze due to erratic behavior and good acting ability
d. lack of experience on the part of rater with certain types leads to a inability to type some people
I think most people will not have close personal experiences with all 16 types of people and have a indepth knowledge or understanding of these types.
Aushra herself was not able to write all 16 descriptions and she was someone who had interviewed and worked with hundreds and thousands of people.
Knowing socionics really well is only one component of typing people accurately, you have to really know people as well, which requires a good deal of socializing.
The mind a killing weapon
The heart an open wound
I think this thread should be renamed interrater unreliability and socionics.
Socionics theory isn't difficult to grasp, nor is it difficult to type *in theory*. But to know people as who they truly are rather than who we simply think them to be requires an entirely different skillset altogether, which oft times has a direct relation to the degree and depth of socializing we engage in. Many a time, it is not lack of understanding of theory that is the cause of mistypings (for the more seasoned typers), but a lack of understanding of the subject himself, coupled with lack of close experience with the type/subtype in question (which means that the risk of attributing the wrong type indicators to observed behavior is high).
Typology is sound, Socionics is sound as a framework, Socionics does not have sound content.
Anyone who tries to base their typings directly on this content is thus going to get it wrong, and if they are not even looking at a real phenomenon in the first place, there is no basis for reliability. As a framework it's not bad, but it needs a lot of work (which I currently have in the works).