How do you type people? Do you think it's the best method of typing people? Why or why not?
How Do You Type People?
How do you type people? Do you think it's the best method of typing people? Why or why not?
VI. Can easily see amount of fe and se, and if its valued or not.
We had a thread about this elsewhere, maybe someone remembers.
I watch and listen, for as long as it takes. I try not to rush to judgement but I also take intuitive first impressions into account which works seems to work well on people who don't know the system. They are all fresh and untarnished. I don't like typing anyone under 25 but sometimes younger children are easy to type. There is a period of time when people are often trying to figure out their place in the world and will take on characteristics of people they admire or want to be like. It is a facade which I can feel but it kind of messes with the perception of their type. Sometimes I will doubt my first impressions when something significant happens so I keep my mouth shut mostly. New information has to be taken into account because people show more of who they are over time. Especially when you get to know them off the forum and see them interact naturally with others.
In my head I have a few people here typed now but I still don't say anything. I prefer to wait and see if my intuition is validated. I don't really invest time in typing people either. I don't vote in typing polls anymore for this reason. I have voted too early before and then changed my mind. Plus people are known to change types here so frequently I can't keep up with it all.
“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
I usually get a visceral impression at first sight in which disparate traits jump out at me based on previous experiences with people I've typed - temperament or an ego function are more common things that seem "obvious" to me. As I interact more with them, other things will occur to me. I don't necessarily take it all at face value, but what I ultimately type them usually doesn't stray far from this gut level information. It usually doesn't go farther than this and into in-depth behavioral analysis unless I'm getting close to them and I actually care. Most of my "typing" is habitual pattern-noticing from years of exposure to this stuff.
Talanov lists
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Oh my godOriginally Posted by FDG
easy: P E O P L E
easy: P E O P L E
I VI ppl through extracorporeal experiences and astral projection. I go inside their bodies too.
For sure some ppl in the forum have already felt me inside them while they sleep.
Or, just wear their skin:
I leave that at the end.Or, just wear their skin:
I propose we type based on how much alcohol is in the blood. People will be rearranged accordingly, after a breathalyzer test. 10 consecutive drunk posts and you get sent to epsilon.Or, just wear their skin:
“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
before or after being born?I propose we type based on how much alcohol is in the blood. People will be rearranged accordingly, after a breathalyzer test. 10 consecutive drunk posts and you get sent to epsilon.
Good question!
“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
Anyway, through test results, VI and observing ppl in general beyond typing threads. Careful patient observation of the person, basic theoretical knowledge and experience with the types is compulsory for typing others correctly imo.
I think I have one of the lowest desires than anyone here to type anybody. I just mostly don't care. I would rather get to know someone's inner thoughts and mind. If it so happens to overlap with a type, then connection will be made and I'll find it interesting.
Voice intonations, eyes, key areas of conflict and mutual enjoyment with others, their word choice and how they structure their sentences (verbally not online)
What they say, how they say it, the tone/music behind all the stuff they say, what they look like- what their eyes look like especially. The shape of eyes, orbital depth etc. I read other people's emotions pretty well and I pay attention to how gay they are when they receive their dual seeking function. It's like a strong feeling sense... my affective empathy is way better than my cognitive empathy. I think logical types can get to similiar results using entirely different methods.
what do you make of deep set vs shallow bulgy eyes?
By the behavior. Mostly nonverbal one - by intuitive impressions.
It's good in the degree the classical theory fits to your typings. It fits ok in my experience, with my typing skills.
Also this helps to type quickly and people which you may know surfacely. Nonverbal is enough to assume the type.
To be sure in the type it's useful to watch and communicate for several monthes, to see a human in non-formal situations and where he is assured, acts ingenuously. The more info you have - the lesser chances to mistake, while average mistakes are significant for any today method. Especially it's easy to mistake if your emotions are touched, like with pretty women.
Be attentive to non-types factors affecting the behavior and your impressions from people. Don't hurry to be sure in the type when a human is preconceived to you with good or bad mood. And those who have uncommon emotional states with dominating positive or negative feelings above the average.
@Bertrand
Generally deep set and narrow is delta, although it's possible SLE as well. Shallow bulgy seems beta NF.
Beta SLE eyes have this spherical-ness/roundness to them, like making the entire reality 'whole' and Delta ST eyes are kind of assholeishly looking inward to one's self how they are superior to everybody else. I mean I am biased saying that sorry but you gotta admit they do kind of look objectively patronizing in a way. My eyes look round and water-y and sensual. Gamma eyes have this stern-ness to them.
Though I'm not sure I'm understanding what you mean correctly so maybe post some real pics if you can.
nevermind... you weren't talking to me but I still liked what I said so I'll keep the post.
I tell them what to do and how to behave, what things to say and not to say, then it is easier for me to type them.
Jokes aside (i'm joking?) duals are easier to type, with women there is some lighthearted banter, with men the conversation can be a little more serious but it's easy. I recently realized that someone I have known for years is my dual, with him it's easy to be sarcastic with, the implied humor is picked up on and it's fine. What surprises me with him is that even if we don't speak for a while, he always manages to make a point of keeping in contact with me, through updating phone numbers/addresses etc.
For people in general it's impressions based on others i've typed. Sometimes I have to use some socionics & functions as it's not obvious. Sometimes VI is good. I worked with an ILI at a distance, I thought at first she was IEI as she seemed friendly and joking around, when I began to work closer with her I was confused, very negative and seemed to have lost the initial persona, after time it made sense that she was really ILI.
this is what I was looking for actually, I've noticed colin farrell has super close relatively deep set eyes
is that SLE or delta ST or something else perhaps?
hmm.... looks lsi more than anything. A tricky one indeed cuz its like a weird mix of Beta/Delta.
The body energy looks ixxj as hell.
esi
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Yea esi
...are you one of them?
Anyway, I'm wondering now...what type this guy could be?
Si valuer by default or something else?
Having been involved with typology for over half a decade now, I've noticed that people employ a number of techniques when trying to type people.
Some people take a logical approach. For example, they'll narrow down possibilities according to the traits they perceive until they arrive at what they would say is the best fit.
Others take a more intuitive approach. With a more relaxed state of mind, they'll take in the "whole" of what they perceive until they can pin it down according to preconceived patterns.
It also seems like VI methods fall into at least a couple of categories. On one hand, some VI-ers consider static physical features to be deciding factors. So, for instance, they'll argue that if someone has a specific facial feature, they must be type X. Ie. physiognomy. On the other hand, some VI methods rely more on general behaviors. For instance, how someone carries themselves, comes across, or acts over a more sustained period of time.
Still, many people simply refer to self-typings or rely on test results.
Out of all of these methods, I'd say the physiognomy method seems the most erroneous. My reasoning for this is that many facial features develop mostly as a consequence of specific genetic variations that don't necessarily relate to brain development.
I don't think there's ever been a fool-proof method for typing people. If I'm inclined, I tend to use the more logical approach, but I'm opening myself up to the intuitive method to see what that's like. Even if it doesn't produce a complete representation of Socionics, I'll probably be able to cultivate my own system from the observations.
Last edited by Desert Financial; 12-13-2017 at 12:51 PM.
By observing + talking with them + reading their thoughts + how they behave.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
