How NOT to type people

[consentingadult]

I quote:

Zimbardo was notably blind to the negative impact of his experimentation on his human participants. Several of the participants had nervous breakdowns. Many of his colleagues tried to tell him that the trauma on the participants was too great and deeply questioned the ethics of the experiment. Zimbardo always responded that the use to society in understanding this phenomenon was far greater. That is a typical Beta "vision" in which the impact on individuals in the here and now (R & S) is ignored in favor of what is perceived as a broad-sweeping future good (E+T).

This leaves IEI and EIE as options. His obsessive focus on the experiment (he barely slept during the week-long period) and perseverance in gathering data, as well as his inclination to steam-roll dissenting opinions, is much more consistent with EIE

Source: http://worldsocionics.blogspot.nl/20...-analysis.html

Perhaps Ritella can tell us how she knows that Zimbardo's attitude is to be attributed to his Socionics type, and not, for example, to some brain defect or some kind of disorder which hindered his emphatic abilities?

Another example. in a video typing a girl , Jack Oliver Aaron says, at 1:13:19:

... a few things you said in the interview that really stood out for me. Early on in the interview what you said about getting annoyed when people are trying to get you to calm down, rather than meeting you with your emotions, I think that's a good example of a more Beta humanitarian , where they tend to have strong emotional responses, or are rather intense, and they don.t like the idea [???] calm it down, [you said?] it makes it sound if they're missing your emotions, there not... there not... it's like your voice is not being heard, and for Betas their voice needs to be heard and recognized and they need someone to meet them emotionally

This is utter nonsense. The described behavior, i.e. feeling the need to be heard, understood, to have your emotions recognized, is not something specific to Beta humanitarians, it is common to all people to some extent, unless we have some mental disability or disorder of some sort. Statistically speaking women are somewhat more sensitive to this issue ("women are from Venus, men are from Mars", that kind of thinking, which in itself is the result of a modern social construct and a BS statement in its own right), but males have these needs in some way just as well. Also, it is not uncommon for younger persons, still looking for their place or niche in life, to have such needs to a greater extent than older people, regardless of their type. Ergo: Forer Effect conclusion...

What has happened in these two examples, is that the authors have failed to go through a proper process of falsification, i.e. they failed to investigate other possible explanations for the observed behaviors or intentions, ideas that might be better ways of explaining those perceived phenomena.

That's what happens if you use only a Socionics framework in your attempts to explain phenomena, and leave everything else out of the equation: you end up with nonsense that can easily be refuted. And Forer Effect conclusions. So if you want to type another person, always ask yourself if an observed behavior or intention, cannot be better explained by something outside Socionics. For which, of course, you need a lot more knowledge and (life) experience

By the way, FWIW, Jodi Burrel is IEE. What I see in her behavior is not so much typical of her type, they are typical of an insecure young woman seeking to understand herself and her place in life better. The emotions radiated are not the result of her type, but in a sense, of some kind of mild stress.

[nondescript]

Here is how TO TYPE people properly by Jung's methods( /shrug he invented this /shrug ):

First thing that must be determined is the overall orientation of the individual / psyche. Extraverts(I like the sound of o more, so I use the o form) conform to reality because they see no point in analysing and ordering etc their outer environ / TPEs. This fact stems from the simple notion that their focus is OUT THERE-hence they feel like they must conform their inner likes / dislikes etc to the outer reality(best observable in rational elements-compare Fe to Fi and Te to Ti to see this simple truth in its full glory). Introverts, otoh, feel like it's not about what's out there, but rather how the outer TPEs fit their inner preferences. So, it's perfectly normal to think that introverts, NOT extroverts will be the ones changing and redefining stuff. Again, compare rational elements.

After the overall orientation has been confirmed, the leading element of a subject must be determined. This is done by asking a subject to choose(also by listening how a subject speaks, writes etc) between one of four options: S, N, F, T. When a subject is asked this, it is advised to use precise examples of the oriented element behaviour and decision making. Oriented element refers to the fact that when you are talking to a confirmed extrovert, you will give the examples of Se, Ne, Fe, Te ONLY. After he has chosen an element, it is advisable to ask him again in a slightly different way just to make sure he didn't overthink something or link it to a memory or whatever have you.

After the leading element has been confirmed, it is highly advisable to move onto determining the weakest elements. This is done by listing the opposite orientation elements and asking whether a subject disliked any of the same orientation elements. This will most likely confirm PoLR, Sugg and HA. While we are this, we could also ask about the effect of a role function on a person's life. Sometimes, all it takes to type someone is to notice a role function(or a PoLR)-especially in such a symetrical system as Socion is.

Ultimately we should wrap it up by presenting that subject with the options he has chosen and the following result. We should also leave some wiggle room if a subject was uncertain etc(ALWAYS ask him / her whether he is certain of this!). After that subject has responded positively, we wrap it up, he has his type uncovered etc. Win / Win! If he has responded negatively, we should ask further questions so as subject could achieve full realisation of its own type.

[golden]

Why would a focus on the here-and-now be particularly Beta, when Beta is so Ni-focused? That's not about the here-and-now, whuu? I've read about those Zimbardo experiments more than once, and he comes across as a narcissistic jerk, so that's what I type him.

[Sol]

how to do not think?

[Jack Oliver Aaron]

It looks from the OP that someone doesn't understand a preference for emotions-based Fe communication versus a preference for matter-of-fact Te communication and how that might appear in daily behaviour. The Beta Humanitarian wants the emotional catharsis of intense confrontation, while the Delta Humanitarian would prefer a matter-of-fact discussion of how they feel and what can be done to improve the situation. It is simply the difference between Quadra values that prefer emotionally energised environments when solving problems, and opposing values that do not.

But yes, in the future, I will end all my typings with the disclaimer that I assume the subject does not have a brain defect (other than a Socionics type, of course )

As for Jung's prescribed method, I doubt it would be deemed falsifiable either.

"By the way, FWIW, Jodi Burrel is IEE." - very falsifiable

[consentingadult]

It looks from the OP that someone doesn't understand a preference for emotions-based Fe communication versus a preference for matter-of-fact Te communication and how that might appear in daily behaviour. The Beta Humanitarian wants the emotional catharsis of intense confrontation, while the Delta Humanitarian would prefer a matter-of-fact discussion of how they feel and what can be done to improve the situation. It is simply the difference between Quadra values that prefer emotionally energised environments when solving problems, and opposing values that do not.....[/COLOR]

Again, a lot of stereotypical nonsense, I'm not even going to discuss it. You and your pretentious WSS mental masturbation blogs are the ultimate disgrace to Socionics. It should be outlawed.

[darya]

By the way, FWIW, Jodi Burrel is IEE.

Agreed, this girl is not Beta NF.

[ashlesha]

So, test: disregard someone's feelings when they're upset. If they don't take it well, they're beta NF.

[Jeremy8419]

How TO type people: As you see fit in your own understanding of the world.

How NOT TO type people: Telling them that they are a type due to your own understanding of the world.

How TO win: Compare your typing of someone with their own and vice-versa with an open-mind to support communication of each other's worldviews.

[Muddy]

When typing I think is it best to look at someone in a general perspective rather then putting too much weight into specific life events. I actually think the best to way to type is too forget about socionics and instead analyze someone in an independent state of mind looking for patterns, rather then collecting scattered evidence in a attempt to pigeonhole someone into a type. Once a picture starts emerge between while observing various patterns of behavior, THEN is it time to consider assigning a type, not before.

[Jeremy8419]

When typing I think is it best to look at someone in a general perspective rather then putting too much weight into specific life events. I actually think the best to way to type is too forget about socionics and instead analyze someone in an independent state of mind looking for patterns, rather then collecting scattered evidence in a attempt to pigeonhole someone into a type. Once a picture starts emerge between while observe various patterns of behavior, THEN is it time to consider assigning a type, not before.

To a certain degree. Ti (type) requires Te (objective data).

Life events and upbringing are objective. You can measure them and weigh them independent of subject viewing such. I'm actually working mentally on an article, but I'll put some of the jest in here. You see, those objective things relating to people and the people they have developed into behaviorally and assumed cognitively (as there is no means to verify cognition, only someone's word for it) are indeed objective, and to reject them as inconsequential in relation to society is to reject the objective for the subjective.

In relation to society, you have two general groups of people relating to Socionics that would become involved with it: Those who would support Socionics and those who would reject it. You have online. You have situations concerning relationships throughout your life. All these things are objective. To say that "being heavily involved with Socionics online has nothing to do with personality" is to effectively reject the objective fact that this is observable, measurable, and verifiable independent of the subject. It is entering subjectivity. To ignore the fact that this group is divisible into two distinct groups of those ultimately in support of Socionics and those ultimately opposed to Socionics is also ignoring objectivity in favor of subjectivity.

If you divided all of humanity into 16 groups, you would find all those in favor of Socionics within one group, which share objective traits. If you sub-divided such further, you would find what most people online are doing regarding typing other people. You see, to get to the sub-level accurately, you must first accept the reality of the first level. People are online, looking for a subjective system, and are poor at relationships relative to general Society. This is objective fact. You can subdivide these even further.

If you had everyone involved with Socionics, in earnest, write their life stories, you would be very surprised at the extreme level of similarities between individuals compared to general society. People are primarily typing within this level, rather than the level above, especially considering that they are so sensitive about their relationships.

The reality is that, in relation to general society, 98% of individuals on the various typology forums are within a single dual-dyad, becoming lost within subdivisions after ignoring the first very obvious level. Then there are further subdivisions. And then further.

At the point you ignore very real things, you already enter into a very dark place.

[consentingadult]

When typing I think is it best to look at someone in a general perspective rather then putting too much weight into specific life events. I actually think the best to way to type is too forget about socionics and instead analyze someone in an independent state of mind looking for patterns, rather then collecting scattered evidence in a attempt to pigeonhole someone into a type. Once a picture starts emerge between while observing various patterns of behavior, THEN is it time to consider assigning a type, not before.

This is exactly how it should be done: by observing and taking your time. No interview, in whatever form, can result in an accurate assessment of someone's personality traits, the reasons for this are all over textbooks on social psychology (which is why I feel no need to further discuss it). And certainly not an interview which employs methods we already know from astrologers and psychics.

[consentingadult]

So, test: disregard someone's feelings when they're upset. If they don't take it well, they're beta NF.

I wish I could have put it this eloquent myself!

[Skepsis]

I quote:

Zimbardo was notably blind to the negative impact of his experimentation on his human participants. Several of the participants had nervous breakdowns. Many of his colleagues tried to tell him that the trauma on the participants was too great and deeply questioned the ethics of the experiment. Zimbardo always responded that the use to society in understanding this phenomenon was far greater. That is a typical Beta "vision" in which the impact on individuals in the here and now (R & S) is ignored in favor of what is perceived as a broad-sweeping future good (E+T).

This leaves IEI and EIE as options. His obsessive focus on the experiment (he barely slept during the week-long period) and perseverance in gathering data, as well as his inclination to steam-roll dissenting opinions, is much more consistent with EIE

Source: http://worldsocionics.blogspot.nl/20...-analysis.html

Perhaps Ritella can tell us how she knows that Zimbardo's attitude is to be attributed to his Socionics type, and not, for example, to some brain defect or some kind of disorder which hindered his emphatic abilities?

Another example. in a video typing a girl , Jack Oliver Aaron says, at 1:13:19:

... a few things you said in the interview that really stood out for me. Early on in the interview what you said about getting annoyed when people are trying to get you to calm down, rather than meeting you with your emotions, I think that's a good example of a more Beta humanitarian , where they tend to have strong emotional responses, or are rather intense, and they don.t like the idea [???] calm it down, [you said?] it makes it sound if they're missing your emotions, there not... there not... it's like your voice is not being heard, and for Betas their voice needs to be heard and recognized and they need someone to meet them emotionally

This is utter nonsense. The described behavior, i.e. feeling the need to be heard, understood, to have your emotions recognized, is not something specific to Beta humanitarians, it is common to all people to some extent, unless we have some mental disability or disorder of some sort. Statistically speaking women are somewhat more sensitive to this issue ("women are from Venus, men are from Mars", that kind of thinking, which in itself is the result of a modern social construct and a BS statement in its own right), but males have these needs in some way just as well. Also, it is not uncommon for younger persons, still looking for their place or niche in life, to have such needs to a greater extent than older people, regardless of their type. Ergo: Forer Effect conclusion...

What has happened in these two examples, is that the authors have failed to go through a proper process of falsification, i.e. they failed to investigate other possible explanations for the observed behaviors or intentions, ideas that might be better ways of explaining those perceived phenomena.

That's what happens if you use only a Socionics framework in your attempts to explain phenomena, and leave everything else out of the equation: you end up with nonsense that can easily be refuted. And Forer Effect conclusions. So if you want to type another person, always ask yourself if an observed behavior or intention, cannot be better explained by something outside Socionics. For which, of course, you need a lot more knowledge and (life) experience

By the way, FWIW, Jodi Burrel is IEE. What I see in her behavior is not so much typical of her type, they are typical of an insecure young woman seeking to understand herself and her place in life better. The emotions radiated are not the result of her type, but in a sense, of some kind of mild stress.

This is a common problem with pseudoscience in general:

[Skepsis]

A new dichotomy discovered: A preference for science vs one for pseudoscience. I can hardly contain my enthusiasm.

[Jeremy8419]

Sounds like Ti blocked with Se vs Ti blocked with Ne

[Jack Oliver Aaron]

Again, a lot of stereotypical nonsense, I'm not even going to discuss it. You and your pretentious WSS mental masturbation blogs are the ultimate disgrace to Socionics. It should be outlawed.

Exaggerated negative remarks, followed by the announcement that these remarks won't be discussed. This pattern would itself be quite Beta. Fe and Se-valuing with delicate Ti. Do we have an EIE with a grudge? What did I ever do to you

I mean if you're going to play the pseudoscience card (do I claim to be practising science?) you should at least show yourself to be able to offer alternative, constructive reasoning for your typing of people. However, this thread seems more like propaganda than something with content.

[Jack Oliver Aaron]

So, test: disregard someone's feelings when they're upset. If they don't take it well, they're beta NF.

That assumes asking someone to calm down is disregarding their feelings when upset. It is interpreted that way by some and not by others.

The Delta and the Beta have different attitudes towards what of their feelings are important for communication. For example, Deltas will prefer to speak sincerely and in a matter of fact way about their personal attitudes, thinking that the person they are addressing, if someone they have a close relationship to, will take them at face value. Betas will prefer to communicate their emotional feeling, even exaggerated, to the other person and get people to care, whether negatively or positively (kind of what is going on with the OP).

[Skepsis]

I quote:

Zimbardo was notably blind to the negative impact of his experimentation on his human participants. Several of the participants had nervous breakdowns. Many of his colleagues tried to tell him that the trauma on the participants was too great and deeply questioned the ethics of the experiment. Zimbardo always responded that the use to society in understanding this phenomenon was far greater. That is a typical Beta "vision" in which the impact on individuals in the here and now (R & S) is ignored in favor of what is perceived as a broad-sweeping future good (E+T).

This leaves IEI and EIE as options. His obsessive focus on the experiment (he barely slept during the week-long period) and perseverance in gathering data, as well as his inclination to steam-roll dissenting opinions, is much more consistent with EIE

Source: http://worldsocionics.blogspot.nl/20...-analysis.html

Perhaps Ritella can tell us how she knows that Zimbardo's attitude is to be attributed to his Socionics type, and not, for example, to some brain defect or some kind of disorder which hindered his emphatic abilities?

Another example. in a video typing a girl , Jack Oliver Aaron says, at 1:13:19:

... a few things you said in the interview that really stood out for me. Early on in the interview what you said about getting annoyed when people are trying to get you to calm down, rather than meeting you with your emotions, I think that's a good example of a more Beta humanitarian , where they tend to have strong emotional responses, or are rather intense, and they don.t like the idea [???] calm it down, [you said?] it makes it sound if they're missing your emotions, there not... there not... it's like your voice is not being heard, and for Betas their voice needs to be heard and recognized and they need someone to meet them emotionally

This is utter nonsense. The described behavior, i.e. feeling the need to be heard, understood, to have your emotions recognized, is not something specific to Beta humanitarians, it is common to all people to some extent, unless we have some mental disability or disorder of some sort. Statistically speaking women are somewhat more sensitive to this issue ("women are from Venus, men are from Mars", that kind of thinking, which in itself is the result of a modern social construct and a BS statement in its own right), but males have these needs in some way just as well. Also, it is not uncommon for younger persons, still looking for their place or niche in life, to have such needs to a greater extent than older people, regardless of their type. Ergo: Forer Effect conclusion...

What has happened in these two examples, is that the authors have failed to go through a proper process of falsification, i.e. they failed to investigate other possible explanations for the observed behaviors or intentions, ideas that might be better ways of explaining those perceived phenomena.

That's what happens if you use only a Socionics framework in your attempts to explain phenomena, and leave everything else out of the equation: you end up with nonsense that can easily be refuted. And Forer Effect conclusions. So if you want to type another person, always ask yourself if an observed behavior or intention, cannot be better explained by something outside Socionics. For which, of course, you need a lot more knowledge and (life) experience

By the way, FWIW, Jodi Burrel is IEE. What I see in her behavior is not so much typical of her type, they are typical of an insecure young woman seeking to understand herself and her place in life better. The emotions radiated are not the result of her type, but in a sense, of some kind of mild stress.

The problem is not that there is a correct way to type people. The problem is that the structure of the theory isn't scientific to begin with, making it pointless to even have a correct way. Because the theory is limited in its ability to explain people, there will always be disagreement, often quite varied, among practitioners. Every human action, behavior, thought, is translated into terms that can be categorized under the theory. Because the same observation can be interpret in numerous ways, the translation itself may vary considerably. Saying that one person has a better way to type than another is also pointless. It often leads to a battle between who is the best socionics practitioner, and not to any real truth about the person. The only reasonable position to take is one that is conservative, one that takes the various interpretations into consideration and the possibility that no conclusion can be made. It would be one that says that sometimes people can be described in socionics terms, but sometimes, or even mostly, not.

[Jack Oliver Aaron]

The problem is not that there is a correct way to type people. The problem is that the structure of the theory isn't scientific to begin with, making it pointless to even have a correct way. Because the theory is limited in its ability to explain people, there will always be disagreement, often quite varied, among practitioners. Every human action, behavior, thought, is translated into terms that can be categorized under the theory. Because the same observation can be interpret in numerous ways, the translation itself may vary considerably. Saying that one person has a better way to type than another is also pointless. It often leads to a battle between who is the best socionics practitioner, and not to any real truth about the person. The only reasonable position to take is one that is conservative, one that takes the various interpretations into consideration and the possibility that no conclusion can be made. It would be one that says that sometimes people can be described in socionics terms, but sometimes, or even mostly, not.

I would disagree that it is pointless to have a 'correct' way. In order for the theory to become scientific, it needs to first be standardised, so there needs to be a common discourse with how we interpret phenomena and assign it to a type. Validity is predicated by reliability. However, I would very much agree with the spirit of your argument in saying that it is false to have a 'factually true' way of typing people though, as there is no empirical proof or the existence of type. Socionics at the moment is just an analytical tool that parses data based on a priori discrete states. The criteria for better or worse comparisons is not yet factual truth, but theoretical robustness.

[Soupman]

When typing I think is it best to look at someone in a general perspective rather then putting too much weight into specific life events. I actually think the best to way to type is too forget about socionics and instead analyze someone in an independent state of mind looking for patterns, rather then collecting scattered evidence in a attempt to pigeonhole someone into a type. Once a picture starts emerge between while observing various patterns of behavior, THEN is it time to consider assigning a type, not before.

That is too much effort, aint nobody got time for that

[consentingadult]

That is too much effort, aint nobody got time for that

Not quite. It takes time to master the types. Over time you will gain so much experience with them, that with some people it becomes ridiculously easy to type them at first glance. It's a process of developing your pattern recognition skills.

That's also how I typed that girl in the video mentioned in the OP: two seconds of seeing her was all it took. No analysis of what she said or how she behaved was involved. Don't ask me to explain it, that would be impossible, it took me ten years to master this skill.

[Aylen]

That is too much effort, aint nobody got time for that

Ideally people would use socionics to type people they actually know and relate with irl . People that you actually want to get to know... so what he suggests is a good method for understanding real life relationships. If people used that method with people they actually know there wouldn't be so much confusion by jumping the gun on typing only to have to go back and start over if the relationship does not work out how they believe it should.

Also you can't blame socionics for relationship failure because people have an ability to choose how they respond to others. It would be annoying, for example, to be in relationship, for 5 years, with someone who told you that you were their "dual" only to break up and have them tell you, that you are a completely different type. Not jumping the gun by typing based off a few cherry picked behaviors the day you meet someone could avoid all that.

I wouldn't type someone I was in a relationship with until I had enough data. If it took months so what. If you are trying to apply socionics in any meaningful way then it is worth it. Also, I probably wouldn't be typing anyone I was seriously interested in, in a serious way, to begin with. There are many other factors that are more important in relationships. I would do it more as a fun get to know you project, on the side.

Online typing, through an interview, is the last thing I would trust if I was interested in finding out my own type. Typing someone with such a limited perspective is like believing in a flat earth because you can't see the whole person. You are basically relying on a very narrow view. I don't trust anyone to know me better than I know myself. Primarily because I have so many dimensions of me that I never show others, or, if I do let them see, it is a little bit at a time so I don't freak them out.

Having said all that, I agree that the girl in the op is not beta NF but I couldn't tell you specifically why other than her vibe. I could say she is similar to those I have known for years that I now consider to be IEE in socionics. I have enough history with those people to be comfortable typing them. I am not sure of this girl as I don't even know her. Maybe Ne users have more confidence typing people they just meet but I still wouldn't trust them over myself. A lot of Ne users will be more open about the different possibilities of a person's type and will just say outright what comes to mind. If it changes an hour later they will say that too. I am more cautious when it comes to giving my impressions online. Mostly I don't want to mislead someone into thinking they are a type when I don't have enough information to tell them why I think so. I also hate going back and eating my own words but who likes being wrong...

I do get immediate impressions that I am more likely to keep to myself for many reasons. Not trusting that socionics is valid enough to label someone I care about is one of them. I will talk about it with my more open minded friends and it is fun and interesting to take tests with them. Now if they want to know their aura color, or what stocks to buy, I'm their girl and will happily share that knowledge. Maybe in ten years I will also have that confidence in my typing ability.

[Aylen]

Exaggerated negative remarks, followed by the announcement that these remarks won't be discussed. This pattern would itself be quite Beta. Fe and Se-valuing with delicate Ti. Do we have an EIE with a grudge? What did I ever do to you

I mean if you're going to play the pseudoscience card (do I claim to be practising science?) you should at least show yourself to be able to offer alternative, constructive reasoning for your typing of people. However, this thread seems more like propaganda than something with content.

This is so unprofessional Mr Aaron.

I am not against what you are doing, ftr. I am all for making money doing something you love. If it is going to be a business, that you want to grow, you gotta learn to take that constructive criticism and not bite back. grrr

You appear to be pretty young still (god I hated being told that) and I am sure there is still a lot you don't know about human psychology/nature (in general). I got a few years on you, been studying this stuff forever and there is a lot I don't know. Some things I was sure of 10 years ago have all been flipped around on me and I am always humbled by it later (I hate admitting that). Be open to advice and store it away. It might serve you well.

[Aylen]

"By the way, FWIW, Jodi Burrel is IEE." - very falsifiable

How so?

[Skepsis]

I would disagree that it is pointless to have a 'correct' way. In order for the theory to become scientific, it needs to first be standardised, so there needs to be a common discourse with how we interpret phenomena and assign it to a type. Validity is predicated by reliability. However, I would very much agree with the spirit of your argument in saying that it is false to have a 'factually true' way of typing people though, as there is no empirical proof or the existence of type. Socionics at the moment is just an analytical tool that parses data based on a priori discrete states. The criteria for better or worse comparisons is not yet factual truth, but theoretical robustness.

In order for the theory to be standardized, the premise that people have a priori functional preferences has to be proven. A preference can't exist a priori anyways, given that preference implies experience. Given that it is beyond the realm of science to prove it, because the definitions are too vague to be falsifiable, standardization isn't possible. It doesn't follow that one can have standardization if there isn't empirical proof.

In addition, there isn't any evidence that function certain functions, like Fe and Te, are mutually exclusive in the same individual. While it is probably true that one must either consider social harmony or factual data, it depends entirely on the situation. Fe can be preferred in social contexts and Te in professional or academic settings, for example. Only if one observes that person A seems to value one over the other in numerous different circumstances can it be said with any confidence that person A does prefer one over the other. This doesn't happen during online typing sessions.

[Jack Oliver Aaron]

Not quite. It takes time to master the types. Over time you will gain so much experience with them, that with some people it becomes ridiculously easy to type them at first glance. It's a process of developing your pattern recognition skills.

That's also how I typed that girl in the video mentioned in the OP: two seconds of seeing her was all it took. No analysis of what she said or how she behaved was involved. Don't ask me to explain it, that would be impossible, it took me ten years to master this skill.

And you're the one bringing up falsifiability? You must be a comedian.

[Jack Oliver Aaron]

This is so unprofessional Mr Aaron.

I'm not a professional.

I am not against what you are doing, ftr. I am all for making money doing something you love. If it is going to be a business, that you want to grow, you gotta learn to take that constructive criticism and not bite back. grrr

WSS is a not-for-profit. Proceeds go towards funding meetups and other WSS services.

You appear to be pretty young still (god I hated being told that) and I am sure there is still a lot you don't know about human psychology/nature (in general). I got a few years on you, been studying this stuff forever and there is a lot I don't know. Some things I was sure of 10 years ago have all been flipped around on me and I am always humbled by it later (I hate admitting that). Be open to advice and store it away. It might serve you well.

I have an MEd in Psychology of Education and am currently getting an MSc in Occupational Psychology. I am sure there is a lot about human psychology, but unless you have a PhD in the subject, I don't think your advice in that specific area is going to be very helpful to me. However, I know very little about you and do not know where your level of expertise is better or worse than mine in a range of subjects. Until that point, you will need to demonstrate insight or wisdom that will make me think you are someone I should listen to over other people.

I am also very open to advice, as long as the advice is good advice. What makes your advice good other than your claim to be a lot older than I am?

Certainly consentingadult has demonstrated that their attempts to advise are so ungraciously delivered and so internally inconsistent, as to qualify as comedy.

[Jack Oliver Aaron]

How so?

Indeed how so. That is the tongue face of irony.

[Jack Oliver Aaron]

In order for the theory to be standardized, the premise that people have a priori functional preferences has to be proven.

The theory can be standardised as a set of agreed-upon terms before proving that empirical claim. However, that is an empirical claim that will need to be supported by evidence sooner or later.

A preference can't exist a priori anyways, given that preference implies experience.

Preference doesn't imply experience. A baby is born with a preference for sweet food over bitter food. No experience there.

Given that it is beyond the realm of science to prove it, because the definitions are too vague to be falsifiable, standardization isn't possible. It doesn't follow that one can have standardization if there isn't empirical proof.

Standardisation does not require empirical support. It just needs well-defined terms that people can agree on. The definitions need to be sharpened so that they are not vague. From there, it becomes a question of identifying with reliability.

In addition, there isn't any evidence that function certain functions, like Fe and Te, are mutually exclusive in the same individual. While it is probably true that one must either consider social harmony or factual data, it depends entirely on the situation. Fe can be preferred in social contexts and Te in professional or academic settings, for example. Only if one observes that person A seems to value one over the other in numerous different circumstances can it be said with any confidence that person A does prefer one over the other. This doesn't happen during online typing sessions.

It makes sense intuitively that one is diminished by the presence of the other. And yes, the fact that there are clear preferences for one over the other in different contexts supports that intuition. How to apply that to type? well, one should take into account how different types adjust to different contexts. However, this is all something where evidence really should be gathered from empirical tests.

[Jeremy8419]

The theory can be standardised as a set of agreed-upon terms before proving that empirical claim. However, that is an empirical claim that will need to be supported by evidence sooner or later.


Preference doesn't imply experience. A baby is born with a preference for sweet food over bitter food. No experience there.


Standardisation does not require empirical support. It just needs well-defined terms that people can agree on. The definitions need to be sharpened so that they are not vague. From there, it becomes a question of identifying with reliability.


It makes sense intuitively that one is diminished by the presence of the other. And yes, the fact that there are clear preferences for one over the other in different contexts supports that intuition. How to apply that to type? well, one should take into account how different types adjust to different contexts. However, this is all something where evidence really should be gathered from empirical tests.

Worldview -> terms. Not the other way around. The structure and the terms placed into the structure are two different things.

You start with behaviors with others, and you dissect them. You then move to worldviews behind each, and you dissect them. You then move to reasons behind each, and you dissect them. You then move to terms, and you dissect them. Once you do all these things for various types of people in the general population, you may compare and contrast the parts of each level. Once you do this, you may translate effectively.

It's innate to me. Do you understand?

[Jeremy8419]

In order for the theory to be standardized, the premise that people have a priori functional preferences has to be proven. A preference can't exist a priori anyways, given that preference implies experience. Given that it is beyond the realm of science to prove it, because the definitions are too vague to be falsifiable, standardization isn't possible. It doesn't follow that one can have standardization if there isn't empirical proof.

In addition, there isn't any evidence that function certain functions, like Fe and Te, are mutually exclusive in the same individual. While it is probably true that one must either consider social harmony or factual data, it depends entirely on the situation. Fe can be preferred in social contexts and Te in professional or academic settings, for example. Only if one observes that person A seems to value one over the other in numerous different circumstances can it be said with any confidence that person A does prefer one over the other. This doesn't happen during online typing sessions.

By Socionics own definitions, Socionics lacks specific reference point in time and the ability to be applied globally.

For what you say to exist, people must each develop their own "socionics" and type people according to their own viewpoint, they must then compare their own typings of those people with the people's own typings. One may be 100% SEI in my view and myself be EII, but such is worthless unless I also know what they consider themselves and me. I may view them, myself, and "us" one way, but reality dictates that they will most likely have a different view. If we do not have a different view, then reality dictates that we must be identicals.

[Aylen]

I'm not a professional.

I agree.

WSS is a not-for-profit. Proceeds go towards funding meetups and other WSS services.

Oh wow you have "not-for-profit" status.

Did you have to file all the paperwork to claim that status? It seems like a pretty straight forward process. Or, do you mean you use that title because the money only goes toward funding your hobby and the proceeds go specifically toward hooking up with other people into socionics (and those "other WSS Services")? Neat way to fund your social life/hobbies, btw. I wish I had thought of it.

Anyway, I am pretty sure in another thread I defended your right to make an income from this and you didn't balk at my post in support of you.

I have an MEd in Psychology of Education and am currently getting an MSc in Occupational Psychology. I am sure there is a lot about human psychology, but unless you have a PhD in the subject, I don't think your advice in that specific area is going to be very helpful to me. However, I know very little about you and do not know where your level of expertise is better or worse than mine in a range of subjects. Until that point, you will need to demonstrate insight or wisdom that will make me think you are someone I should listen to over other people.

I am also very open to advice, as long as the advice is good advice. What makes your advice good other than your claim to be a lot older than I am?

Certainly consentingadult has demonstrated that their attempts to advise are so ungraciously delivered and so internally inconsistent, as to qualify as comedy.

I didn't say you should listen to MY advice. I said you should learn to take constructive criticism, which was an opinion, OR you can be a pompous dick about it and blame Fi polr, or some other cognitive affliction beyond your control. I don't care either way as I have made no investment in the future of you hobby. I have invested in my future and have some experience. Let's just say I don't have to form a not-for-profit to fund my hobbies/social life.

I don't know @consentingadult but I have read posts and they have some useful insights but whatever... You are an adult and can choose what is insightful and helpful for yourself.

Another opinion is that I am not convinced that you are better at typing than the majority of forum members and I have seen quite a few videos. The way you choose to defend yourself against criticism is being noted by many and will play a part in whether or not they choose to take WSS seriously. If you don't take it seriously yourself why should anyone who might potentially donate to your "not for profit"?

Also I didn't realize you were so well educated and working in the field of psychology. You must have so many clients and tons of experience working with all kinds of types. I wonder if it is hard to stay objective, stick to your training and keep socionics out of it...

FTR, I never claimed to be a lot older than you. I just said I had some years on you. You sure know how to take a leap though. You are coming off like a pompous little know it all at this point so I will make sure not to engage you further so take my advice, this once, and don't engage me either. All the education in the world is not going to make up for the lack of experience you exhibit but go ahead see for yourself. I am not one to laugh and say, "I told you so." Really I'm not... seriously.

Please don't bother to answer any of my questions as they are all rhetorical (I pretty much know what you will say) but if you feel you have to defend yourself against someone who is clearly not as qualified as you, go ahead but I am no longer interested in what you are selling.

Yay, that was fun! Did you listen to the song? It was great background music.

P.S. It might surprise you how much I know about psychology and how I received my specific education in the area.

Have a pleasant day.

[Skepsis]

Preference doesn't imply experience. A baby is born with a preference for sweet food over bitter food. No experience there.

This is comparing different concepts. This is comparing a priori principles with biological predispositions. A priori is a philosophical concept that pertains to epistemology. How can one have a priori discrete states? That seems like a contradiction of terms. I'm not even sure what you mean by that. Typology is essentially an insertion of certain philosophical concepts into science that have little to do with the philosophy of science.

A baby doesn't have a preference until they have the experience. Most babies have a predisposition to sweet foods and its measurable and may very well be encoded in our DNA. But, a preference for sweet foods, and something more specific like preferring sweet peas over carrots is based on experience. In addition, this changes throughout one's life. One may prefer sweet foods as a baby and dislike them as an adult. This has nothing to do with a priori states. Genetic information is not a priori as it is generally understood.

What we do seem to agree on is an understanding that our brains process information and that it is different from person to person. I don't think most people would disagree with that. I think most typologists have it backwards though. The dominant function, and maybe the creative function, is just a very vague description of an overall personality type that likely consists of various traits that include information processing systems and corresponding behaviors, and not one specific function, or a priori state, that accounts for most of the information processing. Many of the other other cognitive functions are implied by the first two functions and are not really needed. Functions themselves aren't really needed, as they are descriptive in nature The overall type descriptions serve a similar purpose in that there is a high correlation between them and their theorized first three dichotomy preferences. For example, the INTp description fits well with introversion, the ability to think logically and abstractly, as does the INTj description. They have way more in common than they should based on socionics theory, and essentially master the same "functions" upon closer inspection. Anything more specific is quite subjective and open to interpretation. I'm obviously highly skeptical of "true types" that exist solely to serve as a confirmation bias of the theory.

[Jeremy8419]

Well, most want to claim Socionics is static and something you've been born with. Separating the environmental aspects of personality from the biological from the get-go. Okay, I don't actually feel like logic'ing this... They just want to have claim to being magically different than they really are. Most seem to have really jacked family backgrounds, beyond poor understanding of people or concepts, moderate to low intelligence, and a priori whatchacallit of delusion as a defense mechanism.

[consentingadult]

How so?

Like I already implied: I know because of the 10 years of knowledge and experience I built with Socionics. I cannot explain it in a few sentences, very much like how I cannot explain Einstein's theories on relativity in a brief forum post to a six year old. Or deliver a critique on Max Weber's theory that modern capitalism is the result of Protestant Ethics in a few brief lines.

I remember the introduction to a book on intuition (in the general meaning of the word). It was about an American museum being offered a Greek statue, but they didn't have the expertise to evaluate it's authenticity. They called in some local experts who said the statue was authentic. They bought the statue and put it on display. Then came along other experts in arts that said they had uncanny feelings about the statue, i.e. some things about it were not quite right, but they couldn't quite pinpoint it. Finally they called in experts from Greece, who at first sight (i.e.. without any kind of analysis) outright claimed the statue was a fake. They could do this because of their experience, their pattern recognition skills. Of course, after that they could elaborate about what it was that made them conclude the statue was fake, but even then only in terms that could only be understood by people being educated in art history. Without a common frame of reference, nothing can be discussed.

Likewise I'm not able to close the gap between my intuitive understanding of this young woman's type (based on pattern recognition) and making a case with argument using wording that anyone can understand. If I really had to, I would have to write volumes full of steps of how I can come to such insights, making clear all what I know about these things.

To make my position clearer, I have made available a post on my former blog, in which I explain some facets about what Se is about, how I relate that phenomenon to insights from mainstream psychology:

http://mavericksocionics.blogspot.nl...-elements.html

Now you can agree with me on this interpretation of Se or not, but that's not the point. The point is that my understanding of Se is not just limited to what Socionics sources have to say about it; the point is that I cannot explain my intuitive typing of that young woman as IEE in a short blog post like the ones published on the WSS blog.

This is the problem for everyone engaging in Socionics: ultimately each one of us has to invest time and come to our own unique, complex and rich understanding of the types in order to put it to fruitful use. There are no shortcuts to understanding social and behavioral sciences in general, and Socionics in particular. Each one of us is left to our own devices, until some day valid academic courses on the subject are available.

And even then this doesn't solve Jodi Burrel's insecurities about her own type. Ultimately, she has to figure it out herself, through her own understanding of Socionics, not someone else's say-so.

[Skepsis]

Well, most want to claim Socionics is static and something you've been born with. Separating the environmental aspects of personality from the biological from the get-go. Okay, I don't actually feel like logic'ing this... They just want to have claim to being magically different than they really are. Most seem to have really jacked family backgrounds, beyond poor understanding of people or concepts, moderate to low intelligence, and a priori whatchacallit of delusion as a defense mechanism.

Once you dig further beneath the surface, you find the inconsistencies and contradictions in the theory that makes typing with certainty impossible. It bothers me when I see people overconfident about their conclusions based on so little information. It perpetuates stereotypes and I often observe a type of bullying that occurs when someone claims to be a type that someone disagrees with. It leads to illogical claims, such as "you expressed(or have written about) emotion, therefore, you can't be a logical type." How is this suppose to help an individual come to a better understanding of themselves? One must assume that the individual has more information about themselves than the most skilled practitioner of typology. Any other assumption is just plain arrogance.

[consentingadult]

One must assume that the individual has more information about themselves than the most skilled practitioner of typology. Any other assumption is just plain arrogance.

I disagree, especially when considering this issue from a broader psychological perspective. People are often more accurate about someone else's psychological makeup than their own. The reason is very simple: you cannot perceive yourself like you can perceive other people. Other people can, epistemologically, be treated as objects. The Self is much more of a theoretical construct than the constructs you create of other people.

Most people who have seen a video of themselves are quite shocked about how they appear to the outside world ;-)

[Skepsis]

I disagree, especially when considering this issue from a broader psychological perspective. People are often more accurate about someone else's psychological makeup than their own. The reason is very simple: you cannot perceive yourself like you can perceive other people. Other people can, epistemologically, be treated as objects. The Self is much more of a theoretical construct than the constructs you create of other people.

Most people who have seen a video of themselves are quite shocked about how they appear to the outside world ;-)

I disagree with an even broader perspective, ahahaha. The observer's perspective is relevant! If the system used to evaluate the psychological makeup of another is faulty, they will arrive at faulty or at least limited conclusions. It's like Freud insisting that everything you say is caused by sexual repression and penis envy. With typology, if a typologist observes Fe and concludes Fe dominant, and the subject is read the description and is like whaaat?, maybe the practitioner is giving disproportional weight to a limited set of observations. It is not necessarily the observers fault, the subject may be withholding information. Take the video of the girl in the video mentioned above. One person types IEI and the other IEE. There is just not enough information in an hour to conclude with certainty what her type is, but the typologist gave justification within the theory for the type, the subject concurred and this and they seemed to be satisfied. It was based on information provided. That is about as good as it gets as far as I've observed. It would get better with more information collected over time and in varying situations, but most people don't have the time, funding, or interest to be that accurate. This leads to some sort of speed typing. Wasn't it Jung himself that said it could take a lifetime to discover one's type?

The fact that one can give justification for another type based on the same information is due to the limits of the theory: The vagueness of functional and type descriptions, confirmation biases, the lack of a standard to distinguish between the presence and strength of a function, etc.

[consentingadult]

The fact that one can give justification for another type based on the same information is due to the limits of the theory: The vagueness of functional and type descriptions, confirmation biases, the lack of a standard to distinguish between the presence and strength of a function, etc.

This part I agree with. Obviously evaluating someone else's personality characteristics only works on a very general level.