Why There's So Much Disagreement on Typings

[Krig the Viking]

Every so often someone or other starts a thread talking about how Socionics is B.S. because no-one can agree on typings. I just thought I'd point out the real reason why there's so little agreement on typings.

In order to accurately type a person, you have to:
a) Have an accurate understanding of Socionics theory, and,
b) Have an in-depth understanding of the subject's personality.

Consequently, socionists can be divided into four categories:
1) Those who understand the theory but not the people,
2) Those who understand the people but not the theory,
3) Those who understand neither,
4) Those who understand both.

If you assume an even distribution, only 1/4 of socionists (Group 4) would be capable of producing reliable typings. This is made even more difficult by the fact that we're all communicating via the Internet, and the only subjects we have in common to compare notes on are celebrities and other forum members. In both cases, the lack of face-to-face interaction makes it much more difficult to get an in-depth understanding of the subject's personality.

None of this means that socionics is B.S., any more than the fact that advanced calculus is difficult makes math B.S.

[Krig the Viking]

I actually think if you were to measure the extent to which people (on this forum) agree on typings, you'd find it's substantially higher than one might expect.

The concordance ratings (somewhat outdated) on this page of niffweed's give at least some idea of that.

My suspicion is that there's a lot of "follow the leader" going on there. People are predisposed to believe that a person's self-typing is correct. It would be interesting to see a statistical analysis of that.

[Absurd]

My suspicion is that there's a lot of "follow the leader" going on there. People are predisposed to believe that a person's self-typing is correct. It would be interesting to see a statistical analysis of that.

You're going to have a lot of these blind followers, damn lemmings.

[krieger]

there aren't really any systemic reasons why excessive controversy over typings arises. the problem is in the individuals. most people expressing their opinions on typings are either not experienced or not devoted to reaching a consistent and empirically justified manner of typing. when you weed out the bad roots, you find a clique of competent typers that agree on typings far more than the rabble at large do.

[xerx]

I have Ashton and his quasi-clique on ignore.

[Absurd]

I have Ashton and his quasi-clique on ignore.

I'm not stinking rich yet.

[mu4]

Every so often someone or other starts a thread talking about how Socionics is B.S. because no-one can agree on typings. I just thought I'd point out the real reason why there's so little agreement on typings.

In order to accurately type a person, you have to:
a) Have an accurate understanding of Socionics theory, and,
b) Have an in-depth understanding of the subject's personality.

Consequently, socionists can be divided into four categories:
1) Those who understand the theory but not the people,
2) Those who understand the people but not the theory,
3) Those who understand neither,
4) Those who understand both.

If you assume an even distribution, only 1/4 of socionists (Group 4) would be capable of producing reliable typings. This is made even more difficult by the fact that we're all communicating via the Internet, and the only subjects we have in common to compare notes on are celebrities and other forum members. In both cases, the lack of face-to-face interaction makes it much more difficult to get an in-depth understanding of the subject's personality.

None of this means that socionics is B.S., any more than the fact that advanced calculus is difficult makes math B.S.

I agree with this and typing is one of those fundamental problems in socionics which remains unresolved. There is a bit more to it imo.

Knowledge of types and theory I think is asymmetric. I think the distribution of 1 2 and 4 are > 3 but only for 6-12 types(just a guess) rather then the full socion.

The distribution of theory knowledge, person knowledge is going to be asymmetric, and weighted towards types in close proximity including, parents/friends/children/siblings, etc.

A problem can also occur where due to knowledge of a spectrum of types within close proximity, the assumption is made on the quality of assessment of individuals outside of that spectrum.

From what I understand, Aushra was only to reliably(in her mind) describe 7 types and she had a career doing psychology, consulting, family planning. Al-through, some of her reluctance may be do to having weak ethics in her IM. I think the most comprehensive detailed descriptions are all from strong ethical types(Filatova, Beskova I think is ENFp) etc who have much higher confidence in ethics.

I have a short list of types that I think I can assess rapidly, ESE, IEI, ILE, LSE, SLE, EIE, EII etc... and a list that I think I cannot assess rapidly, the rest.

I think generally people have such discrepancies in type knowledge and theory knowledge. I generally find that people who have very certain knowledge concerning all 16 types to be very erroneous in typings.

[Absurd]

What use is any of this, anyway? I mean is somebody going to like challenge it? If not, then I don't know what's the point in it.

[Krig the Viking]

I definitely agree, hkkmr. I was describing the general overview, but there's definitely a spectrum in both condition a) and condition b). You can range from knowing almost nothing about socionics, to knowing a bit about a few types, to knowing a lot about many types, to (in the best case scenario) having encyclopedic knowledge of all types. The same is true of understanding people: you can range from having a minimal and superficial understanding of an acquaintance or celebrity, to understanding basically how they think and feel, to having deep intimate insight into the inner workings of their soul.

In terms of how the type of the socionist affects things, I'd say that Intuition and Ethics helps to understand people's inner workings, while Intuition and Logic helps to understand the details of the theory. I know that STs, for example, seem to have fairly superficial estimations of people's personalities, while SFs often lack a sophisticated grasp of the theoretical details.

[DividedsGhost]

Why does it have to always be either one or the other: socionics is BS or it's not?

If you argue that it's not BS, that's just as suspicious as someone that argues that it is because then you also aren't even willing to talk about or consider limitations. What is there to say then? I don't agree or disagree with you and think it's very suspicious that some are so quick to do so.

I mean, yeah these things are possible, but so can it be that you're deluding yourself in various ways. Do you want to talk about specific scenarios where we consider different variables and a different arrangement of those variables? Then I'm much more inclined to agree or disagree with you, since I know somewhat specifically what we are referring to.

[Leader]

Because people do not know how to type.

[Trevor]

http://www.socionics.ws/wiki/index.p..._me-too_typing

User:Aestrivex/essays/


type distribution statistics and me-too typing

[krieger]

so niffweed thinks he is himself just 1.6 points removed from being a "completely insane, solipsistic typer; someone who is practicing a splinter version of socionics that literally nobody else agrees with". way to shoot yourself in the foot.

[EyeSeeCold]

http://www.socionics.ws/wiki/index.p..._me-too_typing

User:Aestrivex/essays/


type distribution statistics and me-too typing

The formula for generating "me-too-ness" is arbitrary and produces inaccurate estimations.

[Creepy-male]

If you argue that it's not BS, that's just as suspicious as someone that argues that it is

Exactly thank god, finally some common sense, I wish more people had this perspective. A lot of the attitudes on this forum make the implicit assumption that socionics is true and valid as a basic axiom -- attitudes towards socionics skeptics are met with a kind of cult-like voracity. This ensures the presence of a sort of dogmatic following as to the fundamentals of the theory and makes it impossible to innovate new ideas on top of the fundamentals.

Further crippling things is that even if people were to agree on the theoretical basics, in application there are certain problems. People are likely to go about typing differently.

Both aspects and connected as well which further confounds the issue, maybe errors in how one applies socionics doesn't stem from one's ability to observe features in other people and characterize them within a theoretical framework, maybe the error lies within the theoretical framework being faulty. This is what I've been trying to say.... maybe the level of talent out there is an illusion as consensus drives people to conform to a particular community opinion of people's types, and the collection of these opinions drives peoples understanding of the socionics framework. The problem is because the framework is being developed after the fact and not verified from a pre-asserted statement that it's possible that people's conceptual understanding varies quite widely although on the surface a consensus would make it appear as though there is a solid theoretical framework that the community agrees upon.

This is part of the no true scotsman fallacy, people are moving around types to cook the data, to make assertions work after the fact... rather than trying to validate an assertion with observation, and proceed on to modifying that assertion when presenting with conflicting evidence. This is why I said most people's understanding of socionics is BS -- or more literally for the naysayers.... most people's understanding of socionics may be BS -- because although there are many consensus' on people's types its hard to say if these consensus' are the driving force in and of themselves or if they have been arrived at through a convergence of people's individual typing methodology and knowledge.

[mu4]

Blah blah blah

What's your point again?

Socionics framework for sure is incomplete, and non-precise, but is it a approximation of reality that is better then say something like MBTI and Enneagram. I think for sure it is, and that's all I need to know until I find another framework to study the human psyche.

The whole point of this post actually is about how understanding of socionics only plays a very small part in type diagnostics. And how the fact that there is no instrument for analysis of type which we can objectively rely on forces people to attain a high level of subjective knowledge of people which corresponds which corresponds with reality to make accurate typings. Even then it's a tenuous judgement.

Anyways, The No True Scotsman fallacy basically doesn't exist conclusively in socionics, because you could never prove that a person is Type Z in the first place to use as a counterexample to whatever universal claim was being made.

"All INFps enjoy literature.... Maggie doesn't enjoy literature and types INFp.... Well all true INFps enjoy literature, Maggie isn't one of them."

Alice: All Scotsmen enjoy haggis.Bob: My uncle is a Scotsman, and he doesn't like haggis!Alice: Well, all true Scotsmen like haggis.

You actually made a poor example of this fallacy, because the basis of the fallacy is a factual counterclaim, which doesn't exist in socionics.

"All Infp enjoy literature"
"Maggie is an INFp and he doesn't enjoy literature" (This can't be ascertained conclusively in socionics)
"Well, all true INFp like literature"

Please respond to me in your other thread rather then derail this one.

[mu4]

Haha, hkkmr's mad that HLD is savaging The Faith.

Not really, socionics is basically the best typology out there currently, but it's pretty much still crap as far as a science. I just get annoyed at his fallacies.

[Krig the Viking]

http://www.socionics.ws/wiki/index.p..._me-too_typing

User:Aestrivex/essays/


type distribution statistics and me-too typing

Neat!

Obviously, an independent typer is not necessarily the same as an accurate typer. Still, it's an interesting look at the general state of English-speaking socionics, and more or less backs up my intuitive suspicions.

[krieger]

lunatic asylums are full of "independent thinkers".

[FDG]

lmao niffweed, that "article" is the pinnacle of autistic intellectual arrogance

also, what labocat said

anyway, idk, socionics works IRL so this debate is kind of moot.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

In both cases, the lack of face-to-face interaction makes it much more difficult to get an in-depth understanding of the subject's personality.

I probably come across as ' a lot less Fe' in real life, or something, but I've gotten the same praises/criticism from other people in real life as I have gotten online, so I try to be honest/authentic. People think that online vs real-life is like this mysteriously uber different thing when it really isn't lol. Real life is just more.... physical (both in a negative and positive way), but the psychological drama you get involved in with people is remarkably similar.

None of this means that socionics is B.S., any more than the fact that advanced calculus is difficult makes math B.S.

True, but you people overly complicate things to the point where you don't really realize the emotional harm you're doing to yourself and others. It's just a little weird when you guys try to rationalize people being assholes instead of making them accountable for their own behavior. Maybe you like people being mean, and hey admitting that is at least honest. We all watch Judge Judy because we want to see her be a bitch to others. I don't think socionics should be used as an excuse for treating others poorly, just as an excuse on why you just can't get close to some people as opposed to others. (the romantic heart is fickle and choosy as it were)

This is made even more difficult by the fact that we're all communicating via the Internet

The internet is real though. It's a part of reality, of real life.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

lol I just watched a Judge Judy episode where she said to everybody that this guy has a lesion on his groin.

[redbaron]

lol I just watched a Judge Judy episode where she said to everybody that this guy has a lesion on his groin.

??? LOL

[Suz]

I agree with this and typing is one of those fundamental problems in socionics which remains unresolved. There is a bit more to it imo.

Knowledge of types and theory I think is asymmetric. I think the distribution of 1 2 and 4 are > 3 but only for 6-12 types(just a guess) rather then the full socion.

The distribution of theory knowledge, person knowledge is going to be asymmetric, and weighted towards types in close proximity including, parents/friends/children/siblings, etc.

A problem can also occur where due to knowledge of a spectrum of types within close proximity, the assumption is made on the quality of assessment of individuals outside of that spectrum.

From what I understand, Aushra was only to reliably(in her mind) describe 7 types and she had a career doing psychology, consulting, family planning. Al-through, some of her reluctance may be do to having weak ethics in her IM. I think the most comprehensive detailed descriptions are all from ENFp(Filatova, Beskova I think is ENFp) etc who have much higher confidence in ethics.

I have a short list of types that I think I can assess rapidly, ESE, IEI, ILE, LSE, SLE, EIE, EII etc... and a list that I think I cannot assess rapidly, the rest.

I think generally people have such discrepancies in type knowledge and theory knowledge. I generally find that people who have very certain knowledge concerning all 16 types to be very erroneous in typings.

I thought Filatova was INFj?


But yes otherwise, i agree on the points u are making here.

[mu4]

I thought Filatova was INFj?


But yes otherwise, i agree on the points u are making here.

Oh I meant more strong ethical types, rather than ENFp, I wasn't sure Filatova's typing exactly.

[Youngian]

2) Those who understand the people but not the theory

By this I hope you mean that in practice socionics requires a good enough eye for behavior (specifically social) to collect data which is both detailed and natural (ie as unbiased as possible). At this I agree, but without GOOD socionic theory this data cannot be interpreted or have much to do with socionics, and so I think that low theory (and even worse, BAD theory) is a more fundamental problem than low social observation because the latter is more of a skill that can be learned while the former is more of an understanding.

Although this skill of impartial observation or as you put it a "deep intimate insight into the inner workings of their soul" is interesting in itself and I would like to discuss this perhaps too, I think there is a more fundamental problem here with the other condition.

1) Those who understand the theory

What would it mean to "understand the theory?" We're all in the same boat, we speak english and not Russian, and this lack of a basic text or ground work all but eliminates successful collaboration. Would it be enough for you if within my own system of typing it was reliable and my theory sound, or would there at least need to be some intergroup reliability? Of course, I assume the latter because of your comment, "Obviously, an independent typer is not necessarily the same as an accurate typer," so I would like to know how this is possible regarding intergroup reliability without some sort of theoretical common ground (unless you think the wikisocion and other English socionics sites are sufficient for this, which would also need to be defended).*

In my thread HERE (http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...with-Socionics) I argue that the *REAL and MOST FUNDAMENTAL "reason why there's so little agreement on typings" is the lack of an English translation of the original text. Its no surprise that reliability is low if there is no theoretical base to be used as a reference point and common ground for further collaboration. So we're left not knowing the theory or making it up (filling in the holes) ourselves. This will make even the most studious students of socionics unreliable as a group since we are in effect making our own systems in isolation, which can be very deadly in typologies which already have a reliability problem.*I don't mean to hijack the thread or anything but to me this is the real source of the reliability problem.

"maybe the error lies within the theoretical framework being faulty"

I wouldn't say faulty just incomplete and untranslated leaving no room for common ground. Do you think translations of Augusta may provide a theoretical reference point to collaborate and may resolve many of the initial difficulties of theoretical disagreement?

"The problem is because the framework is being developed after the fact and not verified from a pre-asserted statement that it's possible that people's conceptual understanding varies quite widely although on the surface a consensus would make it appear as though there is a solid theoretical framework that the community agrees upon."

Agreed, although I think that the lack of a solid theoretical framework comes from doing socionics in isolation without access to an original and detailed theoretical base, without which would naturally lead to data cooking since there is no agreed lens or method to collect and interpret the data. If not through translations, how in your opinion can this problem be solved or at least minimized so we can start doing socionics effectively and progressively?

And Hkkmr, you say that "The whole point of this post actually is about how understanding of socionics only plays a very small part in type diagnostics." I thought the point was that it plays an equal part. Can you defend how little or shaky theory can lead to good typings? What is the mechanism used to type if not the socionic theory?

Of course you also say that "Socionics framework for sure is incomplete, and non-precise, but is it a approximation of reality that is better then say something like MBTI and Enneagram. I think for sure it is, and that's all I need to know until I find another framework to study the human psyche." This "I don't need to know more" attitude is precisely the problem, and you may choose to do socionics this way (a lot of people do) as long as you don't make claims about socionics that require a deeper and more formal understanding, which believe it or not some of us think is possible.

[mu4]

And Hkkmr, you say that "The whole point of this post actually is about how understanding of socionics only plays a very small part in type diagnostics." I thought the point was that it plays an equal part. Can you defend how little or shaky theory can lead to good typings? What is the mechanism used to type if not the socionic theory?

The theory is very small, the mechanism to type is in creating a instrument to type without human intervention. Also the mechanism will need to work to type people that will have good intertype relations and fulfill the predictions of socionics. The theory is a tiny part of this mechanism, it's the basis, but ultimately a lot more work needs to be done to create such a mechanism. A typing mechanism that require the user to corroborate people's behavior thoughts to socionic theory requires great understanding of human nature and not just understanding this simple explanation of complex interactions.

Of course you also say that "Socionics framework for sure is incomplete, and non-precise, but is it a approximation of reality that is better then say something like MBTI and Enneagram. I think for sure it is, and that's all I need to know until I find another framework to study the human psyche." This "I don't need to know more" attitude is precisely the problem, and you may choose to do socionics this way (a lot of people do) as long as you don't make claims about socionics that require a deeper and more formal understanding, which believe it or not some of us think is possible.

You're wrong here and misunderstanding me here. All I need to know is that Socionics is better then MBTI, enneagram and other typology(imo) to focus my attention on it and investigate more into it, why do you think I own and operate this site. It has a much more solid theoretical framework then MBTI and other system. It doesn't mean I don't look for other frameworks to understanding the human psyche because I do, but generally outside of psychology, such as artificial intelligence and methods to evaluate information preferences.

Anyways, I don't think you really understood me at all.

I promote Socionics and try to help others understand it because I think it's the best typology currently being investigated, and I think it can be improved on and a mechanism created to give a accurate and objective socionic type measurement.

This site is the main focus point of Russian/original text to english translations current occuring, and there are plenty of articles which more or less reflect the original authors intention translated by the members. This has been a ongoing collaborative effort that has occured here for the last 6 years and it is just a small step to creating a library of socionics resources for all researchers to explore. It's not going to happen over night and I will support this project until I believe it no longer has potential.

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/content.php

[Creepy-male]

I'm responding to hkkmr in my other thread

[NewBorn STAR]

Because some people are stupid