Hey there

[Thelema]

I'm here to learn more about Socionics and to establish my type. And I'm only creating this thread because I have to.

[Sol]

I'm here to learn more about Socionics and to establish my type.

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...=1#post1096450

And I'm only creating this thread because I have to.

It was not obligate.

[Beautiful sky]

Hello

[Contra]

you a thelemite?

[jaein]

I'm here to learn more about Socionics and to establish my type. And I'm only creating this thread because I have to.

Heeey

[Thelema]

Thanks for the replies, everybody




@Sol Sorry, no. I think it is absurd to rely 100% on VI as if it were the most reliable typing method. But I don't want to discuss about it, 'cause apparently you are very attached to it and nothing I could possibly say would change your mind on the matter (and vice-versa)




@Contra Nope, not exactly. But I like some ideas and themes of this philosophy a lot!

[Sol]

I think it is absurd to rely 100% on VI as if it were the most reliable typing method.

It's not VI as it was popularized on MBT bullshit sites as I don't use physiognomy. I use intuitive impressions from non-verbal behavior.
Video gives not only visual info, but words too. Nonverbal behavior contains important information wich is used in IRL typing.
Nonverbal-intuitive typing gives not less average and max match than questionnaires (by experiments) and hence has not less objective sense to be used in typing.
It's not against Jung's theory to think types are expressed in nonverbal behavior. It's not absurd to use intuition to analyse nonverbal behavior - you do it every day when interpret emotions of people.
It's not more absurd then rely on much speculative interpretations of doubtful texts, often having incomplete for typing info.

But...
It's absurd to be typed without part of information about your behavior wich is used in IRL typing without reasonable basis for this.
It's absurd to reject a method against wich you have neither theory, nor experimental data. Especially taking into account you take seriously totally hypothetic typology like Socionics and evidently defective other methods, wich more to say give match <50% between anyone.
It's absurd to ignore opinion of the ones who have much experience in region where you know almost nothing and have experience close to zero.

But I don't want to discuss about it, 'cause apparently you are very attached to it and nothing I could possibly say would change your mind

My opinion about method is based on own positive experience, - behavior and traits of typed people fit to theory in good degree. That's why I trust it. While I have nothing objective against it.
The easy way to change your scepsis - try this method yourself. Take descriptions of dichotomies, functions and types. Then watch people and try to guess to wich side of dichotomies they are closer (T or F type is in front of you) and wich functions they express more (for example, for F type - Fi or Fe). Just try to feel it by your impressions. Also nonverbal behavior is part of how IR work, you use it anyway.

After typing you may check is type or its part given to you is correct by examples in my lists. IR should work. For example if you'll be typed to T, then you should find as more interesting people of F types in my lists. It's not hard to make a 10 min video and then check does the method work or not. You'll loose nothing meaningful even in case of negative result. But if you'll be typed incorrectly due to lack of needed info - it will be harder for you to understand the typology and use it with benefit.

[Beautiful sky]

Thanks for the replies, everybody




@Sol Sorry, no. I think it is absurd to rely 100% on VI as if it were the most reliable typing method. But I don't want to discuss about it, 'cause apparently you are very attached to it and nothing I could possibly say would change your mind on the matter (and vice-versa)




@Contra Nope, not exactly. But I like some ideas and themes of this philosophy a lot!

His "intuitive impressions" are 100% wrong btw