Aestrivex's "Me-too typings"

[1981slater]

This is rather interesting.

http://socionics.ws/wiki/index.php?t..._me-too_typing

[Absurd]

there is at least one data point that is an enormous false negative -- polikujm, who has 100% concordance with ashton's very long list of typings. ashton's list, by its own merits, has a reasonable degree of independence from me-too-ness. polikujm's list which is a literal copy of most of ashton's list artificially replicates this property. so, clearly, this metric isn't perfect.

Bwahaha!

[FDG]

I like how niffweed is only a mere 1.6 points removed from the lowest rank

Such estimate seems to be biased upwards, roundaboutly speaking.

[Galen]

Cool, agreement with another person counts as sheepishness. Thanks for the heads up niffweed.

[Creepy-Snaps]

Cool, agreement with another person counts as sheepishness. Thanks for the heads up niffweed.

That's what I think too.

[Absurd]

It's a double-edged sword. Niffweed should know that already.

[Krig the Viking]

It's important to keep in mind that this just gives an overview of who's an independent thinker, and who follows the crowd. It does not show how accurate "the crowd's" typings are (if the crowd is highly accurate, then it's good to agree with the crowd), nor does it show the reason for the independent thinkers' divergence from the crowd -- those who are less accurate than the crowd will diverge just as much as those who are more accurate than the crowd.

[The Ineffable]

Further evidence that niff is a Ni-Base type . So if the typings of X and Y correspond even when they don't know each other, this still tells a story about them. Statistically. Spiritual unconscious collaboration. While the lesser numbers become more relevant, that happens only in a cultural, conventional way. Galilei was certainly a crackpot for his time, what did that tell about whether he was right or wrong?
I don't disagree with him that me-too'ing happens, just it can't be quantified like that, it's just a pretense pf doing so.

[EyeSeeCold]

It's important to keep in mind that this just gives an overview of who's an independent thinker, and who follows the crowd. It does not show accurate "the crowd's" typings are (if the crowd is highly accurate, then it's good to agree with the crowd), nor does it show the reason for the independent thinkers' divergence from the crowd -- those who are less accurate than the crowd will diverge just as much as those who are more accurate than the crowd.

^[1]Not at all, Niffweed's error is that he assumes convergence is always directly caused by adopting the opinions of others(or "me-too-ing"). The problem is that convergence typings are expected to occur if Socionics is a valid phenomenon with reproducible results, and to equate independent thinking with having divergent typings is scientifically absurd in its analysis.

The only possibly accurate results from Niffweed's study are those that concern members with large lists who converge significantly so(especially when subtyping is utilized), or those who seem to have basically copied the list. Obviously this includes polikujm, who has already been suspect, so no new information there.

Socionics is a perspectivist subject and not everyone has the same perspective of the people they type, the theoretical types as they understand them and believe to manifest in reality, and Socionics in general. This means there must be a degree of divergence otherwise there is an anomaly, but not to the extent that people are not expected to converge.

---

^[1] - "nor does it show the reason for the independent thinkers' divergence from the crowd -- those who are less accurate than the crowd will diverge just as much as those who are more accurate than the crowd"

You may have addressed my point here but I couldn't say for certain.

[Beautiful sky]

Who had time to do this analysis. Ughh.

[Creepy-]

So basically, if one has any convergence with another it is because he has a direct link into the hive mind? Way to go there, champ. You got us. We all just agree with each other for the sake of it, except for the oh so independent and original thinkers. Don't you see you are just fracturing the typings and consensus of the forum even more? Sure, there's confirmation bias and sticking others into a predefined category going on here, but that is an integral part of socionics in the first place. And don't seriously try to act like all typings that differ from the majority are forward-thinking and thought-provoking, because it is just as likely they are nothing more than batshit insane typings that have nothing to do with anything.

(EDIT: After being questioned as to which antecedent the pronoun "you" refers to, I felt it necessary to make it known that I am talking to aestrivex, the creator of the so-called "me-too typing list".)

[Krig the Viking]

^[1] - "nor does it show the reason for the independent thinkers' divergence from the crowd -- those who are less accurate than the crowd will diverge just as much as those who are more accurate than the crowd"

You may have addressed my point here but I couldn't say for certain.

Yeah, technically all the data shows (and all it's trying to show) is who tends to agree with the majority, and who tends to differ from the majority. It says nothing about who's right and who's wrong. Being an independent thinker doesn't mean you're correct, and following the majority opinion doesn't mean you're wrong.

The question is, how much of the agreement of the majority is due to correct independent typings, and how much of it is due to the tendency to agree with people's self-typing and/or groupthink? That's what I'm interested in trying to figure out. This data doesn't show that, but it' a step in the right direction.

What interests me is things like who agrees with whom, are there any groups who tend to agree, etc. You can get a bit of an intuitive sense of that just from interaction on the forum, but a statistical analysis of the data would give you a clearer picture.

[Raver]

Yeah, technically all the data shows (and all it's trying to show) is who tends to agree with the majority, and who tends to differ from the majority. It says nothing about who's right and who's wrong. Being an independent thinker doesn't mean you're correct, and following the majority opinion doesn't mean you're wrong.

The question is, how much of the agreement of the majority is due to correct independent typings, and how much of it is due to the tendency to agree with people's self-typing and/or groupthink? That's what I'm interested in trying to figure out. This data doesn't show that, but it' a step in the right direction.

What interests me is things like who agrees with whom, are there any groups who tend to agree, etc. You can get a bit of an intuitive sense of that just from interaction on the forum, but a statistical analysis of the data would give you a clearer picture.

Yeah I agree with you Krig, it seems like niffweed had the right idea, but its difficult to determine why people type a certain way unless you can read their mind.

[munenori2]

Yeah, me too!

[1981slater]

1) x and y coincide....is it because x follows y? because y follows x?

2) I have [90% concordance] with Mune (SEI), Abbie (LSE)
Subterranean (LII IMO) with Aestrivex (ILI) and Marie (EII)
The Hotel Ambush (LII) has [90% concordance] with them too.
Ssmall has [90% concordance] with Marie (EII), Kassie (IEE IMO) and Somavision (IEE?)

3) Is it easier for people to agree ("see the same things") with those with whom we have positive intertype relations (neither conflict, nor superego and supervision)?

4) It seems that most independent thinkers have [90% concordance] with Marie....

4a) Is Marie's list some kind of absolute truth?
4b) Is Marie cheating?

[Krig the Viking]

1) x and y coincide....is it because x follows y? because y follows x?

Or is it because x and y have independently arrived at the same result? No way to externally verify which is which, unfortunately.

2) I have [90% concordance] with Mune (SEI), Abbie (LSE)
Subterranean (LII IMO) with Aestrivex (ILI) and Marie (EII)
The Hotel Ambush (LII) has [90% concordance] with them too.
Ssmall has [90% concordance] with Marie (EII), Kassie (IEE IMO) and Somavision (IEE?)

3) Is it easier for people to agree ("see the same things") with those with whom we have positive intertype relations (neither conflict, nor superego and supervision)?

An interesting question. It makes sense that information would travel more easily along positive relations. There might be a mild influence, statistically, though I doubt it would be very strong.

4) It seems that most independent thinkers have [90% concordance] with Marie....

4a) Is Marie's list some kind of absolute truth?

I was wondering about that. There seems to be a small secondary group typified by Marie84's typings. Are there other groups and sub-groups? How much is of this grouping effect is due to copycatting, and how much is due to theoretical differences, etc?

4b) Is Marie cheating?

No, of course not.

[implied]

Who had time to do this analysis. Ughh.

maritsa, aren't you a psychologist or something? or in research psych? i mean, afaik it is pretty standard to test something for interrater reliability. it is something that has pretty much not led me to say, "NIFF IS A FRAUD!" but "socionics is probably crap."

[EyeSeeCold]

Yeah, technically all the data shows (and all it's trying to show) is who tends to agree with the majority, and who tends to differ from the majority. It says nothing about who's right and who's wrong. Being an independent thinker doesn't mean you're correct, and following the majority opinion doesn't mean you're wrong.

Right.

The question is, how much of the agreement of the majority is due to correct independent typings, and how much of it is due to the tendency to agree with people's self-typing and/or groupthink? That's what I'm interested in trying to figure out. This data doesn't show that, but it' a step in the right direction.

Yeah, this was exactly my point. I wasn't sure from what you stated earlier.

I don't really think you could deduce "me-too-ness" from statistics and logic alone.

What interests me is things like who agrees with whom, are there any groups who tend to agree, etc. You can get a bit of an intuitive sense of that just from interaction on the forum, but a statistical analysis of the data would give you a clearer picture.

You could figure that out through common sense / intuition, right. If you're going the statistical route, I suppose one thing to research could be convergence typings/ratings and the intertype relations. e.g. Duals converge the most on typings, Serious quadras diverge on typings more than Merry quadras etc.