Really? How much are you typing the personality, and how much are you typing things like race, sex, age, income, culture, etc.? And even better: how much are you typing people based on how you think they ought to be, rather than how they are?
What's Really Being Typed?
Really? How much are you typing the personality, and how much are you typing things like race, sex, age, income, culture, etc.? And even better: how much are you typing people based on how you think they ought to be, rather than how they are?
its sort of like alchemy, worthless as method of predictive control, but highly insightful as psychological disclosure. I feel like if you took "type me" threads and progressed backward and typed the typers based on their approach, you would learn more about them than as to the type of the thread creator in question
As I type by nonverbal mostly, so non-types things have a small influence.Originally Posted by Wyrd
> And even better: how much are you typing people based on how you think they ought to be, rather than how they are?
This is % of mistakes. No one know objectively this. Subjectively it's ~10% for my methods.
Alchemy actually can create a lot of useful things once you get past the lead-into-gold thing, so it'd be nice if typology got on its level (or did you mean astrology? although typology is probably below astrology too) but besides that
I VI through astral projection, so all of my typing is 99.9% accurated.
Jung tells me.
yeah sort of how like every once in a while olimpia posts something genuinely insightful in its own right
same
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
maybe it's because we keep looking for ourselves that we are so lost -)
'
Only the insane talk to the dead.
These guidelines were written for enneagram but can be applied to any system. Psychiatrists tell you what is wrong with you and are often wrong. A good therapist or psychologist makes you figure it out yourself by offering guidance. A bad therapist can either intentionally or unintentionally manipulate you to believe things that aren't true, which from a certain perspective makes them good... at influencing.
Typing No-Nos and Yes-Yes | Part 1
TUESDAY, MAY 16, 2017
When typing ourselves on the enneagram or when assisting others in identifying their type, I’ve developed some important guidelines over the years that can be useful in doing this. These are taken from both my own journey in teaching the enneagram, but also from people in my Train-the-Trainer programs and coaching certificate programs. Here are the 1st 4 No-Nos accompanied by a related Yes-Yes. The 2nd part of this blog will cover four more typing No-Nos and a Yes-Yes for each area.
No-No # 1 | Telling someone what their type is or is not
It is very important for people to figure out their own enneagram type, and this can take some time. Patience is our friend here. If we believe we are the expert on typing others, think again! While some new to the enneagram may look for the answer through a typing test and others through an enneagram teacher (and sometimes both), most people new to the enneagram will assume that a test or a teacher is an authority on the subject. This can get in the way of a person being self-reflective or discerning certain key features of the type, and more. As a teacher or as the person who suggests a certain test, people may perceive us or the test as giving them the answer, even when disclaimers are made.
Yes-Yes: Explain in the beginning, the middle, and the end, that they know themselves best so that any outside person, test or book is merely a guide. Repeating this is essential.
No-No # 2 | Unintentionally using type-based stereotypes to explain the 9 types
I doubt whether any enneagram teacher would purposely use stereotypes when teaching or sharing the enneagram with others. If this is true, and I believe it is, the question is this: Are we unknowingly communicating type-based stereotypes? The other side of the issue is that even if we are not communicating using stereotypes, those on the receiving end might hear what we say in a categorical, stereotypical way. What makes this even more challenging is that we rarely have the time to explain each enneagram type fully when we are teaching it; to do so would take hours per type. Further, people love examples or stories for each type; examples or stories anchor their learning. But are our examples feeding stereotypes?
Yes-Yes: It helps to explain that while the 9 types are profound descriptions of the 9 basic human character or archetypes, we are much more than our enneatype. In addition, give example or stories that illustrate the complexity of each type rather than a single dimension. For example, with type 9, use a story or example that shows a 9 both moving away from being in the spotlight and not wanting too much attention, but also illustrates how 9s truly want to be heard and acknowledged. Or if you use the word competitive to describe type 3, remind everyone that we can all be competitive, but in 9 different ways; then, share what you want to say about 3s in relation to 3s being competitive.
No-No # 3 | Using one factor alone to guide people in typing
I see this more in some people who are new to teaching the enneagram, but also sometimes those who think they know it well and have come to rely primarily on one factor. Examples might include the following: one aspect of communication style; a story from a person’s biography; the ways their eyes move; body type; because the new person reminds you of someone you know; the impact someone has on you. Here are some things I’ve heard others say about the types: “That person intimidates me so that person must be an 8 because I get intimidated by 8s,” or “He/she looks like – or talks like – someone I know who is a 6, so he/she must be a 6.”
Yes-Yes: When you start to move toward a single factor in typing, tell yourself to stop and, instead, be in curiosity, asking more questions about other types that might be possible matches. If you only ask about the type you hypothesize that person to be (or that the person thinks they are), you will be risking what is called “confirmation bias.” This kind of bias occurs when the questions are ones that only confirm what you already speculate to be true. In addition, remember that so many types engage in similar behaviors, but they do so for different motivational reasons. Go for the why, not the how.
No-No # 4 | Using tests as the only way to help clients identify type
Typing tests are being used more and more, and there as some good ones that are helpful in helping the enneagram spread. That said, none of them have sufficient reliability and validity to be accurate 100% of the time. My recent experience with two different groups using a test to determine type prior to my working with them – and each group used a different well-known test – is that about 60% had their types correctly identified. Of the remaining 40%, half were close – that is, it was a wing or arrow line of their true type – and the other half were not at all accurate. A reliance on tests, in my experience, without working with the individuals to get their types more accurately is becoming a more common occurrence. The problem is that if people have their types wrong, the development work for that doesn’t work well for them. In addition, if the type is wrong and the individual doesn’t believe the test result describes them well, then these individuals will dismiss the enneagram as an approach when it could have served them well.
Yes-Yes: If you are going to use a test to type someone, just make sure that they know that the test may or may not be accurate for them. Use a test as an initial guide. People taking tests often believe a test to be true; it is, after all, the written word, and it was suggested by someone they believe knows what he or she is doing (as in you!). And make sure you know the enneagram well enough to then guide people toward or away from the test results.
Here is the 2nd set 4 No-Nos accompanied by the Yes-Yes for that area. When typing ourselves on the enneagram or when assisting others in identifying their type, I’ve learned some important guidelines that can be useful in doing this, both from my own journey in teaching the enneagram, but also from people in my Train-the-Trainer programs and my coaching certificate programs.
No-No # 5 | Using behavior rather than motivation to help someone type themselves
Many people learning the enneagram for the first time may attach their thinking to a particular word or phrase we use to describe a type and think this: I do that so I must be this type! or I feel that way so I must be that type! Of course, we have to describe the thought patterns, feeling habits, and recurring behavior of the types to even describe the types at all. However, it is motivation that helps identify type accurately rather than behavior.
Yes-Yes: Emphasize repeatedly that it is motivation for doing something – or thinking or feeling something – that determines type more than the actual behaviors, feelings or thoughts themselves. Make sure to emphasize that several types do the same things but for different reasons; several types may also have some similar although not identical feeling and thought patterns. Give examples such as this – explain that most types can work extremely hard, but … 8s work hard and drive themselves hard out of an excessive need to take big action and hide vulnerability, whereas 3s may work hard if they perceive failure looming, or 1s can work hard to “get it right” and make no mistakes. Make sure you ask people why they do something; ask what drives their behavior or what is behind their thought or feeling patterns.
No-No # 6| Teaching types in a judgmental way (healthy, unhealthy, good types, bad types)
This happens way quite often, and when I hear it directly from enneagram teachers or from people who have been taught by teachers, I make this assumption: the judgmental language arises from a book that was read, a teacher who explained the system, or from the person him- or herself having a tendency to judge what was read or taught. I have found that using healthy-unhealthy or anything that could be interpreted as good or bad doesn’t serve the system itself or the person learning it. The same can be said for teaching the types in their most “neurotic” versions, although those who have attempted to teach only the positive aspects of each type have generally not been as effective as those who teach both the strengths and the development areas of each type.
Yes-Yes: The best way, in my experience, is to be willing to take a look at how you are teaching the enneagram and get a sense of the judging language you might be using and how this might impact the people you teach or work with on the enneagram. Sometimes it is hard to break habits such as using healthy-unhealthy. I personally use high, moderate and low self-mastery for this kind of differentiation. This also has some judgment to it, but perhaps less so. Another idea that helps is for you to get a sense of whether you actually like some types more than others and to then do some self-reflection and development work for yourself. For example, if you over-like or under-like a certain type, the question is why and what does this say about some growth edges for you? Finally, try to use non-judging language to describe aspects of type. For example, when describing 5s, it works better to describe them as “automatically disconnecting from their emotions in real time, reliving some of these experiences later” than to say “unemotional” or “emotionally cold.” These latter descriptions are not actually true, anyway!
No-No # 7 | Pushing a client who is not very aware into a type too early
In our efforts to be helpful, be correct, fulfill our role and more, we might unintentionally exert pressure on clients who are not very self-aware to get their type accurately before they are ready to do so themselves or before they can integrate what the enneagram has to offer them. This issue becomes accentuated when helping people type themselves in a group or team setting, where everyone else except the less-aware person – who is either not self-reflective or is not yet very aware – seems to be able to understand the system and identify type. The social pressure to identify your type earlier than you are ready to do so can get in the way of what is good for the individual and even the accuracy of the typing.
Yes-Yes: Be aware of this issue and assure people that it can take time to identify type, and it is better to take the time needed than come to a pre-mature conclusion. There is no need to let a person know that you believe they are not self-ware enough yet. When you feel yourself “pushing” anyone for any reason – in other words, you are doing most of the work to help them get to what their type may be – just stop, breathe and reassure yourself that it is OK to go slow. A less self-aware person can be of any type; often they just don’t have answers to questions you may ask, or they may actually say they are not self-reflective.
No-No # 8 | Not factoring in a client’s context into the typing process (gender, culture, current and past experiences…)
This is a big issue where we may make assumptions about a person’s type based on how we experience them right now, but we may not understand the world in which they live or have lived. Some cultures have a strong type overlay – for example, Brazil as a 7 country or France as a 4. People from these cultures may have a strong country type-based overlay to consider. For example, 5s in Brazil tend to be much more outgoing than 5s in other cultures. In some cultures, women or men are expected to be a certain way – most common is women as 2s or 4s and men as 8s or 3s – and people may mistype themselves because of this. Families may also contribute an overlay of a dominant parent’s type. In addition, a person who may be terribly stressed when you meet him or her could appear more like a 6 when the person is not.
Yes-Yes: The important thing is to remember that you are meeting a person at a certain time and place in his or her life. The best approach is to ask, without getting too personal, about how they were as children, adolescents, young adults, and so forth. In addition, get more familiar with country cultures, and ask about dominant parents and their types. But most of all, don’t jump to conclusion too early; be in rapt curiosity! The more we learn, the more we know.
Ginger Lapid-Bogda PhD, the author of four best-selling Enneagram-business books, is a speaker, consultant, trainer, and coach. She provides certification programs for professionals around the world who want to bring the Enneagram into organizations with high-impact business applications, and is past-president of the International Enneagram Association. Visit her website: The Enneagram in Business.com. ginger@theenneagraminbusiness.com
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
..in astral world
same
That's really stupid actually. Typing people and assuming something about them.. Just because of socionics.
Like there's one example, ili you see, and you already judged the person's personality upon knowing he's an ili.
But then, upon further knowing the person, he's not really what this fucked up theory is stereotypically saying.
Like they're more complex than psychological tools.
Psychology theories are just references.
Not a guide to follow.
This ain't a life hack. But just a reference
the last part in particular irks me
(typing people based on how we think they ought to be rather than how they actually are)
comparisons were brought up in a video as being one of the worst ways to determine an individual's type. the reason I find comparisons irritating myself, is because I've been compared to so many different people over the course of my life that I have a hard time believing we all belong to the same type, especially considering some of them have typed themselves, so I know we're not the same type, and even if a few of them have mistyped themselves, then there's still a low probability that they are all the same type. so when that's the sole reason someone types me (or anyone) a certain way and they refuse to elaborate any further as if it's somehow out-of-bounds to expect an explanation for their typings, it doesn't make me feel bad because I do it myself, but it does make me wonder how it is that anyone can be dead certain of something that they can't even explain. even worse is the tunnel vision mentality that follows: "anything that you say or do past the point where I've typed you this way can and will be used against you in a 'type me' thread"
"intuition" (it's just my Ni, you know?) is a popular defense people like to utilize to excuse themselves of the task of explaining themselves, ever
and that's the story behind why I strictly adhere to Sluga's VI astral projection method to determine type
I love my Ni I hate everyone elses
I always do this with all people I meet and it works every time.
It works as long as you assume things that are type-related.
The type is objective. You can't flee from your type. It is what it is.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
but Tallmo that assumes that your subjective assessments of type are the objection criterion from which type can be determined
in a certain sense thats true, and everyone does it anyway, tallmo is just more self aware about it, and probably more rather than less accurate for that reason
until we get objective measurements, which we may never get (and even then), its always going to be something of a fundamentally subjectively based model, but that's true of everything
the best way to ground the model then is to always consider who is saying what when assessing the meaning of their statements, rather than to peg it to some central objective truth... the really deep truth is we do this in regard to everything anyway, we just have varying degrees of self awareness. a lot of what is considered true is maleable because the universe "selects" for traits that embody the "truth" inasmuch as it eliminates other competing possibilities. thus even things like science are valid because they're reliable and effective, but if that were to change we would throw them out too [1]. the point of socionics is not some kind of abstract correspondence to something metaphysically certain, but to be useful; when we talk about its truth value we should keep that in mind, I think
I think a lot of reliance on science as objectively true is rooted in poor intuition of time because it fails to see how truth existed prior to science and could exist afterward, thus there is something greater at bottom than the model and that is the force that selects the model which is something like evolution (or God), which science is nested within not the other way around... in other words the notion of science and all its fruit is a product of evolution, and it is easily conceivable that a higher truth, yet to be discovered, awaits. so to chain yourself to strictly scientific modes of thinking is to be time-bound to the present sensory reality of what power it manifests here-and-now to the exclusion of other possibilities
[1] its doubtful they would suddenly stop "working" but rather that something would do the same and more, it (this new thing) may even take up the mantle of "science", but it would be science in a substantially new form; if you go back in time all reasoning was a form of "science" so what the word represents is just a time bound model that will undoubtedly be revised upward eventually and we will look back on it and consider it "science" in the same way we considered more primitive forms of reasoning of bygone eras from the perspective of today "science"--which is to say we won't... so we're either not doing "science" today or we won't be doing it tommorow
a good example of "science stopping working" would be if humanity managed to blast itself back to the prehistoric stone age (history is actually the very beginning of awareness of time in culture), or if its consciousness expanded into a new dimension which would require fundamental paradigm shifts in our understanding... time and the collective unconscious are thought to be the 4th and 5th dimensions that are the likely candidates for this expansion
Last edited by Bertrand; 10-21-2017 at 08:01 PM.
That's easy. In this case you have to either 1) change what you think an ILI is or 2) type him as something else that makes more sense.
So the more people you type, the more nuanced and realistic your understanding of the types will be.
Yes I have learned to type people i meet correctly. If thats what you mean.
Its precisely because individuals have a type that we can assume things about them knowing almost nothing about them first hand.
Learning to type people correctly is a practical task. One learns to observe the right things.
If humans didnt have a type it wouldnt be possible to assume things this way. Then one would have to get to know the person before knowing anything about them.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
This whole thing is entirely circular. It's basically saying, "I'm right because I'm right! I don't need evidence to prove that I'm right! Types exist, because I say that they exist!". Now, a "type" is what I describe as something that is modeled after Model A. We don't even know that the Model A theory accurately describes the structure of the brain. We'll need to actually look into the brain in order to do that.
yeah you're describing intuition, congrats it only took 8 years
Okay. Then using socionics, predict who i am.
I'd go for #1.
But actually, i can have an idea what's his intentions are.
...Actually, you do have to get to know the person before knowing anything about them, it's just proportional to how much you know about them.
I was going to Like this until you got to the structure of the brain part. Model A doesn't have to describe the structure of the brain to apply. It doesn't even have to describe the structure of the brain to describe something that'd biologically determine a psychological type rather than being mystical and "instrumentalia" like Jung. But I think tying psychological typology into biology is exactly where it goes wrong anyways. As long as biology is wrong, any typology that has to stand on it will be wrong. And isn't that what caused American slavery and the Holocaust (Shoah) and the rest of it, wrong interpretations of biology? So that's where you get all the weirdness in typology. But typology comes from biology. That's literally where you get the term. And this is where I'm sure typology gets too technical for most people to care about.
I can never predict what a person is. Only some type traits after knowing the type
I'd have to know your type first but i dont. However irl i often do and can make good assumtions about the person. This is really basic stuff.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
No. Not if we use typology. Then we can predict type traits without knowing the person. Its enough that we know the type but the type can often be assessed quite fast irl. So a minimum of knowledge is needed just enough to assess the type and then a whole bunch of type traits will be known. Thats kindof the point of any typology.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
It kind of does, or it would not have explanatory power. How else would you explain how we think and act the way that we do?
Maybe this whole thing is rooted in people's ignorance of psychology as a field and advancement in neuroscience...
Anyway, this whole thing is rooted in some people defending a theory for the sake of defending it. That's why even making f... criticizing Socionics is getting uninteresting, because all you get are the same dumb hackeneyed ad hominems or weak justifications. Why bother with pesky and difficult things, like actually basing what you say on evidence, or critically analyzing the soundness of a theory, and not just making things up in your head... Why bother with that, when you can rely on simple faith of believing instead. That's why nobody outside of this narrow circle, anyone who is rational, wouldn't ever give a damn about this theory. It's all dead in the water.
Same. It's easy to type a person irl.
Well, the type could be based on patterns in the brain that don't directly correlate to structure, or to the structure of other parts of the nervous system, or even something like the endocrine system rather than just the brain's structure. That's just basic. It could also be something that doesn't even directly show up on a scan like feeling depressed infamously doesn't show up on a scan.
People are disillusioned with psychology and that's why they turn to theories like this. I mean, really, mainstream psychology is down to doing multimillion-dollar-studies telling people that people who like horror films are more likely to be broody and angry than average, people who listen to country music are mostly laid-back, and smart people are very likely to be perceived as arrogant, and arguing over whether personality disorders are real but hauling people away to asylums and shocking them to the point of forgetting their childhoods just in case they are in the meantime. Is this somehow better than systematized folk knowledge?
And yeah, socionics is not-quite-nonsense, but none of what you said has anything to do with why people believe it. In Slavic countries a lot of people just use it like MBTI without being super serious about it. Here, people aren't like "have faith in socionics" but they adapt it to what they already perceive ("systematized folk knowledge"), so they don't think of it as "faith of believing" at all. By that standards everything you think is "faith of believing".
I don't think even Socionics claims such things. Socionics is increasingly purporting itself to be a scientific theory based on science and scientific knowledge (sometimes it references some random scientific research and says that it conforms to the Socionics theory, but that's just conforming facts to theory and not the other way around). I mean sure, Socionics could be some magical mystical theory that has nothing to do with science, but at least it would need to give a convincing explanation as to why it works the way it does. Or at least, back it up with some sort of evidence.
I think it's more to do with that Socionics offers a promise of simple and easy solution to all of life's encompassing problems. Virtually all of human relationships and its troubles can be explained via Socionics. It's easy to understand why people would want to hold on to such promises.People are disillusioned with psychology and that's why they turn to theories like this.
I don't know where you're getting your information from, but they are quite outdated, like they are the psychology of 40-50 years ago (and ironically, the years of Jung). Current psychology is a discipline of science, and they are based on evidence. You come up with a hypothesis, you perform proper experiments and gather statistical data. It's based on what works and it's based on evidence. Socionics is definitely not something that "works" or something that is even based on evidence (I would think that what "works" and "evidence" go hand-in-hand).hauling people away to asylums and shocking them to the point of forgetting their childhoods just in case they are in the meantime. Is this somehow better than systematized folk knowledge?
The so-called "systematized folk knowledge" will have to deal with a myriad of cognitive biases, confirmation bias, hindsight bias, our tendency to see random patterns in meaningless events, and a whole bunch of other human errors and assumptions. And these biases were discovered by the evidence-based field of psychology. Second-hand data and anecdotal evidence are just not very reliable information.
So I ask you, which is more useful... these discoveries that are based on facts and evidence that work nearly every damn time you test it out, or saying that sometimes duals work, sometimes they don't, it all works in mysterious ways. And if that's not faith, then I don't know what is.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
