Problem with typing
When people bring up videos that support a typing usually if they are going for an introverted type they pick videos when the character is in some deep conversation from "inside the actors studio". When they want to support an feeing type they pick something when the person do an apology. Well, all people can be framed to be any type as long you are bias. Right?
Yes, and? I'm interested in the solution of the problem now. Which videos to pick?
have bad typing skillsOriginally Posted by Tigerfadder
I hoped you had the solution!
easy solution: type based on characteristics that are more or less present at all times and unalterable ie. physiognomy.
difficult solution: commit yourself to observing a person over a long period of time and in a variety of situations before typing.
My take on it would be both comparing a group setting with a singular interaction, at best a content where the person comes up with the topic they cover themselves. It's hard to find something without a script by another person. But then again, some Qs in interviews ask for specific elements and then you can check how much the person in question delivers. That's the same with apology videos - how well do they pull off ethics? They might use it but not necessarily well. I would take "biased" videos into account as well as those where the person is deciding what to put out and what not. The latter is particular important - to see what they don't use and what the reason behind that is, the values they prefer.I hoped you had the solution!
I've noticed that some have problems with observation so they base a lot of their information and conclusions more in associations (intuition and potential?) than mere observation, synthesis and comparatives of facts and traits with plain theory (lack of knowledge about theory is common too). Plus, add in some cases weak logic (Ti/Te 1D and the interference of Seeking Functions) which makes the understanding of theory poor or partial and complicates unbiased typing.
I guess weak ethics are more prone to be "i like this person, must be a type that is in good relation to me". "I do not like this person, must be conflictor". you know? But I actually do not think that is common. More common is when someone have a unique approach to Socionics which makes for farfetched types. (my answer).
I've never typed someone who I like/dislike as good relation or conflictor for that single reason. However, I think it can happen depending on Seeking function. If you have for example Fi as seeking I guess it can influence your typings according personal like/dislike because of the mere nature of your seeking function.
I've seen Fi ethicals using typing for distancing from others too, for example: I dislike x, x cant be my dual, etc.
But I also dont think its a rule. I just have seen this happening. Also in the opposite way, I like x s/he must be x.
Actually, problems with observational skills are the biggest issue with Socionics. People get lost in theory when they don't even know the basics of how to watch people and objectively describe their behavior. If they would spend less time theorizing and more time just watching people, Socionics as a whole would be much better off.
Also, not just watching people, but remembering what one has observed so one can use that raw data at a later time is very important.
Yeah, I mean, a lot of socionics theory is indeed based in observations. That's where the descriptions of types and the IEs working together as a whole take place. So if you observe ppl and then have enough and good understanding of theory to fit your observations correctly into a type, the chances of typing correctly increases. Actually a lot of the associations I mention above are wrong theoretically and are more like assumptions (like the own understanding of certain socionics concepts) which remove the original meaning and redefine it so things just twist.
That happens with a lot of fields, not just socionics.
Btw, werent you typing as IEE?(or it was just my imagination?)
A lot of people people just stereotype instead of typing, especially when they're lazy or don't like someone.Yeah, I mean, a lot of socionics theory is indeed based in observations. That's where the descriptions of types and the IEs working together as a whole take place. So if you observe ppl and then have enough and good understanding of theory to fit your observations correctly into a type, the chances of typing correctly increases. Actually a lot of the associations I mention above are wrong theoretically and are more like assumptions (like the own understanding of certain socionics concepts) which remove the original meaning and redefine it so things just twist.
That happens with a lot of fields, not just socionics.
Btw, werent you typing as IEE?
Good with cars? ST.
Good with math? NT
Interested in fiction? N.
Etc.
And yes, I did. Had an epiphany of sorts just recently. I think I'm settled in now.
Stereotype is just common thought, - classical view. The problem is how they are used.
People of a type should to fit its "stereotypes" good and better than "stereotypes" of other types. It needs to know enough about people and to understand the difference of meaningfulness of different factors to decide about the type.
> I think I'm settled in now.
If you may change the opinion about own type to conflictor, then it may take long time until you'll understand the typology to don't get significant contradictions with the theory. And when you get those contradictions - it's bad, as you should fit to core "stereotypes".
To your first point: no.
To your second: Pretty sure I get it. Sorry your typing method didn't work.
My way of typing people is by associating each of their actions/attitudes/statements to an IE or, if possible, to more IEs, showing how they work together to finally reach the conclusion (TIM). Also, in difficult situations, I proceed by exclusion. Like: "This doesn't work, that doesn't work, this other one doesn't work, so it must be this one." Am I doing it correctly, in your opinion?
KEEP IT LIGHT AND KEEP IT MOVING
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote