Page 58 of 199 FirstFirst ... 84854555657585960616268108158 ... LastLast
Results 2,281 to 2,320 of 7937

Thread: Your typing of forum members

  1. #2281
    Honorary Ballsack
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    3,361
    Mentioned
    110 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Number 9 large View Post
    Im Nebula I need scientists to tell me right from wrong
    Lol, okay.

  2. #2282
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    15,766
    Mentioned
    1404 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Avebury 's photos did not gave the impression of LIE, as was expected. also of ILI
    the possibility of him to have N type I see as lesser now

  3. #2283
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    not saying he's any of those types, but what types did you think he looked like generally?

  4. #2284
    Honorary Ballsack
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    3,361
    Mentioned
    110 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Making type conclusions on pseudoscientific V.I. is evidence of weak logic.

  5. #2285
    Guillaine's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    TIM
    IEE 4w5 sx/so
    Posts
    394
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sol View Post
    @Avebury 's photos did not gave the impression of LIE, as was expected. also of ILI
    the possibility of him to have N type I see as lesser now
    Looks alpha sf most likely ese, imo
    edit: or sei, I'm going back and forth

    Avebury more photos with natural expressions like the last one not so neutral as the others with body language would help clarify
    The last photo looks more IP temprement

  6. #2286
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nebula View Post
    Making type conclusions on pseudoscientific V.I. is evidence of weak logic.
    i still want to hear what Sol is thinking

  7. #2287
    divine, too human WVBRY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    TIM
    LSI-C™
    Posts
    6,028
    Mentioned
    237 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Guillaine View Post

    Avebury more photos with natural expressions like the last one not so neutral as the others with body language would help clarify
    The last photo looks more IP temprement
    I'm not trying to "clarify", I am fairly certain of my self-typing and not trying to get VI'ed.

    But I will let people talk.

  8. #2288
    Adam Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    TIM
    ENTJ-1Te 8w7 sx/so
    Posts
    16,229
    Mentioned
    1553 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Avebury, my first impression from the pictures is Alpha feeler. But your posts give me the clear impression of an extremely well-adjusted LIE.

  9. #2289
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    15,766
    Mentioned
    1404 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Guillaine View Post
    Looks alpha sf most likely ese, imo
    edit: or sei, I'm going back and forth
    I had thoughts about alpha too, extraverts of it. Not base T type, definetely.

  10. #2290
    Adam Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    TIM
    ENTJ-1Te 8w7 sx/so
    Posts
    16,229
    Mentioned
    1553 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    It is worthwhile to remember that Socionics is primarily a theory of how people process information. If there are any visual correlations to type, they would be secondary to information processing.

    *EDIT*
    I mean, I'm a big fan of VI, but I'm attracted to its use because it is a quicker method of making a guess at a person's type than actually talking to them for hours, and is useful for filtering the women I meet for dating. My attraction to its use is not based on its proven effectiveness. In fact, I've been keeping track, and my track record using it is not that great.

  11. #2291
    Honorary Ballsack
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    3,361
    Mentioned
    110 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Sol, at this point, I would reevaluate your own "T" and stop typing people who clearly understand more about themselves than you know about them through a couple of photographs. This reeks of psychic powers and astrology, which is not something a T-type would accept as valid.

  12. #2292
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    15,766
    Mentioned
    1404 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nebula View Post
    Making type conclusions on pseudoscientific V.I. is evidence of weak logic.
    thanks for new arguments for your possible F type

    The "evidence of weak logic" is
    1) to call something as wrong (the term "pseudoscientific" means this) without objective prove it is such
    2) to think (in comparision) today typology and the some of today typing methods as "scientific" without good objective basis for this
    3) to reject the use of one Jung's functions (intuition) which thought them equally useful, being active on Jung's types forum
    4) to ignore the results of my experiment that has proved that VI gives useful typing info as allows typing matches much higher than chance (15-20% in average) and even near to IRL interview matches of SRT-99
    5) to underestimate high speculativity of verbal analysis, and also doubtful quality of the info it uses, especially for the messages of the ones who knows types theory
    6) to trust to different heretic bs as Reinin's traits, especially in the degree alike to core types theory
    7) to ignore that a method is used for long and by many ones because is thought as useful due to good match of the seen with the core theory, meanwhile having no contradiction to the Jung's theory or anything objective and "scientific". while the ones who get bad results by this may just need better typing skills (and do not use bs instead of the normal theory)

  13. #2293
    Honorary Ballsack
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    3,361
    Mentioned
    110 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Your tactics won't work on me.

  14. #2294
    divine, too human WVBRY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    TIM
    LSI-C™
    Posts
    6,028
    Mentioned
    237 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Sol once said, "Thanks fot the cute care, I beging to suspect F type in your".

    Sol then typed me ILI because I said something about archetypes, "metaphorical thinking style", he said. "Mb ILI"

    Then, I said something about wanting to be wealthy, "your relation to money is childish and you value this alot. Se in superid". "Mb IEI"

    The he said he would type me as LIE because I said he was the most likely to eat his ceral with vodka.

    Now it's alpha extrovert.

    It's not that I can't be wrong, just I don't know how I'm supposed to trust the credibility of a guy who changes his typing of more often than he probably changes his shirt. And it's not just slight changes in type, but radical ones. ILI, beta NF, LIE, alpha extrovert. It's like he has a radically different opinion of my type with every new bit of information he has about me.

    And now we're supposed to believe this

    my experiment ... has proved that VI gives useful typing info as allows typing matches much higher than chance (15-20% in average) and even near to IRL interview matches of SRT-99
    Really? How are the types determined here? Who has the final say in who's types are correct here? I'm guessing Sol does, so what does that prove?

    Anyways, @Adam Strange, @Guillaine, I hear you guys when you say I look like an alpha SF in my photos, this is a little shocking as it is so far from my self-understanding. Not to say you are wrong, just that I didn't expect this tbh. I've never been typed as a sensor before. But noted.

    Anyways, I don't mind people having an opinion on my type, but my opinion is that Sol's "methods" are not serious. However I do believe in free speech and I don't feel like stopping him. I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to make a fool of yourself.
    Last edited by WVBRY; 09-21-2018 at 02:52 PM. Reason: added mentions

  15. #2295
    Honorary Ballsack
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    3,361
    Mentioned
    110 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Avebury View Post
    Sol once said, "Thanks fot the cute care, I beging to suspect F type in your".

    Sol then typed me ILI because I said something about archetypes, "metaphorical thinking style", he said. "Mb ILI"

    Then, I said something about wanting to be wealthy, "your relation to money is childish and you value this alot. Se in superid". "Mb IEI"

    The he said he would type me as LIE because I said he was the most likely to eat his ceral with vodka.

    Now it's alpha extrovert.

    It's not that I can't be wrong, just I don't know how I'm supposed to trust the credibility of a guy who changes his typing of more often than he probably changes his shirt. And it's not just slight changes in type, but radical ones. ILI, beta NF, LIE, alpha extrovert.

    And now we're supposed to believe this



    Really? How are the types determined here? Who has the final say in who's types are correct here? I'm guessing Sol does, so what does that prove?

    Anyways, Adam, Guillaine, I hear you guys when you say I look like an alpha SF in my photos, this is a little shocking as it is so far from my self-understanding. Not to say you are wrong, just that I didn't expect this tbh. I've never been typed as a sensor before.

    Anyways, I don't mind people having an opinion on my type, but my opinion is that Sol's "methods" are not serious. However I do believe in free speech and I don't feel like stopping him. I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to make a fool of yourself.
    I bet if Sol's experiments were criticized via prestigious peer review he would dismiss the critics as "most likely f type".

  16. #2296
    divine, too human WVBRY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    TIM
    LSI-C™
    Posts
    6,028
    Mentioned
    237 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nebula View Post
    I bet if Sol's experiments were criticized via prestigious peer review he would dismiss the critics as "most likely f type".
    "Their thinking not serious from T types perspective"


  17. #2297
    Honorary Ballsack
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    3,361
    Mentioned
    110 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Avebury View Post
    "Their thinking not serious from T types perspective"

    "Please submit picture ID with evaluation"

  18. #2298
    divine, too human WVBRY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    TIM
    LSI-C™
    Posts
    6,028
    Mentioned
    237 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nebula View Post
    "Please submit picture ID with evaluation"
    "Make the video"

  19. #2299

    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    1,024
    Mentioned
    41 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sol View Post
    5) to underestimate high speculativity of verbal analysis, and also doubtful quality of the info it uses, especially for the messages of the ones who knows types theory
    Isn't this a general problem? Since not every thing and way people can express themselves has been explicitly systematized according to the typological system, there will be a vagueness regarding the categorization of peoples expression of perceptions/thoughts etc. where some sort of associative bridge-building is necessary. And yes, a person who knows of type theory will consciously and unconsciously fit to the model. This is a normal, healthy trait, a method of socialization. But it nonetheless makes one need to focus not on the particular content, but how the person meta-structures so to speak, if it is to be more clear.

  20. #2300
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    its because Sol is typing atomic interactions, i.e.: single data points. it needs to be rolled into a synthetic whole but its not that his observations are invalid in principle. it just needs to be viewed in context.. a big problem is that viewing sufficient data points to really draw a firm and reliable conclusion is almost impossible over the internet. in this way we don't type eachother so much as type our interactions, if you keep that in mind it cuts down on a lot of interpersonal conflict and disputes over the validity of socionics at large

  21. #2301
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    15,766
    Mentioned
    1404 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nebula View Post
    stop typing people who clearly understand more about themselves than you know about them through
    Your weak logic here, due to possible F type, in over generalization of the knowledge about self, of its objectiveness.
    Where I oppose is about the type - what is not objective and clearly seen, but only the interpretation. This interpretation needs theory knowledge, understanding and typing skills which there is no basis to think as better than mine or infallible. Hence there is no logical basis to do not oppose.

    I recommend you to be more reasonable and lesser follow to your emotions in typing.
    Also stop being so naive to what people say about themselves, especially the ones having the theory knowledge and common predisposition to think something about own types. Such people may play types and limited forum's communication makes this easy. You as possible F type may tend to idealize and overestimate the meaning of the verbal data analysis, also having issues with its critical processing you do it surfacely. It needs better types understanding than you and most here (without good theory knowledge and experience; also someones just show the conformism to where people typed themselves by emotional reasons) have to notice the behavior nuances which significantly contradict to some types and help in correct typing. Nonverbal behavior is much harder to falsificate and you'd could to get use from it to be lesser misleaded, but... you unreasonably follow your emotions in the relation to the importance of the nonverbal and intuition in typing.

    If you got bad results by VI to do not trust to it - try it more and you'll study it to get better result. If you never tried VI to use (like I use it - intuitive-nonverbal approach, not physiognomy) - just try. Then you'll understand why people (including of T types) see this as one of useful methods. Possibly your biassed negative opinion about VI is based on emotions, - due to the contradiction of what you want to think as your type and to where you was typed by VI. As to falsificate nonverbal is hard - with more data you could be seen as you are real and typed correspondingly. If you think yourself as T type - you have logical issues I notice easily in your talking, so by communication you seem more to be F type.

    > This reeks of psychic powers and astrology, which is not something a T-type would accept as valid.

    VI is not esoterical, - it's common intuition which analysis nonverbal behavior. I accept what fits to my knowledge and experience.
    While to have T type does not mean the rejection on N region and N-methods. To have some type does not mean the absolute rejection of any among 8 functions, and the opposing for N is S, but not T. T-types reject only objectively wrong or very doubtful, better in this than F types. Sometimes they need practice to accept the seen as doubtful before. They may have assumptions and experiment with hypothetical, - when get good practical results then accept it and use further. Being base Te type which trusts to objective, I accepted Socionics and IR only after own positive practical usage - while before I experimented with it, tried to use and notice the effects I should to get by the theory. It took the monthes of reading and typing to puzzle was finished and I saw it is real, and now see this aprove for years.
    The ideal human has functions balance close to equal and people with accentuated types have more issues in weak regions, are lesser healthy. Normal people use weak functions a lot and have interest to them, just use them lesser.

    As for "astrology", - it has much of verbal analysis and it in typing is also speculative and reminds the astrology more than VI.
    About "psychic powers" and T types. This relates to N a lot. There are guessers with T types (bloggers in typing themes and my list), and among astrologers I saw people with T types too (Globa, Zarayev). Though, I do not trust to astrology (mb cause never messed with it enough to change the opinion; in principle it may be not a knowledge only but also a magical method like guessing and to work by this), but I trust (with some borders) to "psychic powers" like telepathy and guessings as dealed with that positively enough and see no better explanation.

    Study the types, use the classical theory and normal typing data which includes nonverbal, be more critical to what people say, be lesser emotional and surface in your thinking and you'll agree with my opinion more often, will talk and behave more reasonably.

    Keep in the course for your future revelations against my T type. It mb funny.

  22. #2302

    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    Italy
    TIM
    LII-Ti 1w2 sp/so
    Posts
    70
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BFGDoomer View Post
    And yes, a person who knows of type theory will consciously and unconsciously fit to the model. This is a normal, healthy trait, a method of socialization. But it nonetheless makes one need to focus not on the particular content, but how the person meta-structures so to speak, if it is to be more clear.
    I’ve noticed this as well. It seems that my perception of my own personality can radically change depending on what lense I use to view it through, the “lens” being the concepts of type theory, and it feels like there’s something kind of “dishonest” about it at times, in that at certain times I may wonder if I am simply telling myself buzzwords and jargon without actually addressing the “meat” of those concepts. Plus I’ve got to ask myself, am I viewing my personality objectively or am I just looking at a messy representation of it based on shaky foundations?

    The worst part is that while it’s easy to fool oneself, misleading others seems even easier. I could easily compile a questionnaire talking about logic and systems and the like, or repeat the word “efficiency” throughout it, and people would be misled into thinking that I am respectively using Ti or Te.

    Somerimes I wish that I knew nothing about Socionics because it seems that thinking that I am a certain type or another fundamentally compromises the way I feel about myself and maybe even, the way I act and think. It feels a bit like quantum physics - the mere act of observing a particle disturbs it away from its original state.

    So then, what is my original state?

  23. #2303
    Honorary Ballsack
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    3,361
    Mentioned
    110 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sol View Post
    Your weak logic here, due to possible F type, in over generalization of the knowledge about self, of its objectiveness.
    Where I oppose is about the type - what is not objective and clearly seen, but only the interpretation. This interpretation needs theory knowledge, understanding and typing skills which there is no basis to think as better than mine or infallible. Hence there is no logical basis to do not oppose.

    I recommend you to be more reasonable and lesser follow to your emotions in typing.
    Also stop being so naive to what people say about themselves, especially the ones having the theory knowledge and common predisposition to think something about own types. Such people may play types and limited forum's communication makes this easy. You as possible F type may tend to idealize and overestimate the meaning of the verbal data analysis, also having issues with its critical processing you do it surfacely. It needs better types understanding than you and most here (without good theory knowledge and experience; also someones just show the conformism to where people typed themselves by emotional reasons) have to notice the behavior nuances which significantly contradict to some types and help in correct typing. Nonverbal behavior is much harder to falsificate and you'd could to get use from it to be lesser misleaded, but... you unreasonably follow your emotions in the relation to the importance of the nonverbal and intuition in typing.

    If you got bad results by VI to do not trust to it - try it more and you'll study it to get better result. If you never tried VI to use (like I use it - intuitive-nonverbal approach, not physiognomy) - just try. Then you'll understand why people (including of T types) see this as one of useful methods. Possibly your biassed negative opinion about VI is based on emotions, - due to the contradiction of what you want to think as your type and to where you was typed by VI. As to falsificate nonverbal is hard - with more data you could be seen as you are real and typed correspondingly. If you think yourself as T type - you have logical issues I notice easily in your talking, so by communication you seem more to be F type.

    > This reeks of psychic powers and astrology, which is not something a T-type would accept as valid.

    VI is not esoterical, - it's common intuition which analysis nonverbal behavior. I accept what fits to my knowledge and experience.
    While to have T type does not mean the rejection on N region and N-methods. To have some type does not mean the absolute rejection of any among 8 functions, and the opposing for N is S, but not T. T-types reject only objectively wrong or very doubtful, better in this than F types. Sometimes they need practice to accept the seen as doubtful before. They may have assumptions and experiment with hypothetical, - when get good practical results then accept it and use further. Being base Te type which trusts to objective, I accepted Socionics and IR only after own positive practical usage - while before I experimented with it, tried to use and notice the effects I should to get by the theory. It took the monthes of reading and typing to puzzle was finished and I saw it is real, and now see this aprove for years.
    The ideal human has functions balance close to equal and people with accentuated types have more issues in weak regions, are lesser healthy. Normal people use weak functions a lot and have interest to them, just use them lesser.

    As for "astrology", - it has much of verbal analysis and it in typing is also speculative and reminds the astrology more than VI.
    About "psychic powers" and T types. This relates to N a lot. There are guessers with T types (bloggers in typing themes and my list), and among astrologers I saw people with T types too (Globa, Zarayev). Though, I do not trust to astrology (mb cause never messed with it enough to change the opinion; in principle it may be not a knowledge only but also a magical method like guessing and to work by this), but I trust (with some borders) to "psychic powers" like telepathy and guessings as dealed with that positively enough and see no better explanation.

    Study the types, use the classical theory and normal typing data which includes nonverbal, be more critical to what people say, be lesser emotional and surface in your thinking and you'll agree with my opinion more often, will talk and behave more reasonably.

    Keep in the course for your future revelations against my T type. It mb funny.
    The irony is your response is an emotional response, therefore, you cannot be T type. You also use personal experience as "evidence" for your own theory(informal logical fallacy) without secondary confirmations from objective experimentation and peer review. You are also using type as hominems to discredit, another fallacy. Therefore, it is highly unlikely you are T type.

  24. #2304
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    15,766
    Mentioned
    1404 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BFGDoomer View Post
    > 5) to underestimate high speculativity of verbal analysis, and also doubtful quality of the info it uses, especially for the messages of the ones who knows types theory

    Isn't this a general problem?
    I've said that in the context of arguing against rejection of VI.

    The speculativity (the absence of objectivity and scientific approach) was said as specifics of VI compared to other today methods. While they all are highly speculative now. What is evident when by the same typing large questionnaire and IRL interview typers got <20% typing matches. The similar we see on forums regularly.

    The other part was about the advantage of VI compared to "all better" verbal methods. Nonverbal used in typing gives fuller and more honest data than what people say, for example. It has lesser influence of people's self control and environment. For example, F types express the emotions in more specific ways, than they may behave in many situations without difference to T type on common behavior level. You need to know a human closer and more to be sure his behavior is closer to F type than T. You'll see this difference much easier and quicker in nonverbal, in many cases.

  25. #2305
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    15,766
    Mentioned
    1404 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nebula View Post
    Your tactics won't work on me.
    Do not underestimate yourself. Also my messages are not only for you, as it's not pm what you could to notice by your mighty T. Also logical arguments for F types are much unconscious and so you underestimate my Force.

    Your irrational rejection of the opinion instead of logical contrargumentation is another sign of your F type.
    Fe one, due to open negativism instead of the interest to Te. The reply style is general and short what reminds N types, mb P, and the usage of time leads to Ni. Possibly you was typed to IEI in the past by me or others who used visual data.
    Last edited by Sol; 09-21-2018 at 05:36 PM.

  26. #2306
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    15,766
    Mentioned
    1404 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Strange View Post
    It is worthwhile to remember that Socionics is primarily a theory of how people process information. If there are any visual correlations to type, they would be secondary to information processing.
    It's about the psychology, in general. We see only the behavior and other secondary data.
    It may be also noted that anything we think is secondary too - it's perceptions and models, but not the reality itself. We see something and assume based on that, always with some chance on being correct or to mistake.

    > I mean, I'm a big fan of VI, but I'm attracted to its use because it is a quicker method of making a guess at a person's type than actually talking to them for hours, and is useful for filtering the women I meet for dating. My attraction to its use is not based on its proven effectiveness.

    Your attraction "is based on its proven effectiveness", if you think VI as useful for correct type understanding and you do so. You see the subjective effectiveness of it. While the possibility of objective effectiveness I've proved in my experiment of typing matches on bloggers, which you knew about.
    The similar is with other methods.

  27. #2307
    Feeling fucking fantastic golden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Second story
    TIM
    EIE
    Posts
    3,724
    Mentioned
    250 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I posted about this earlier, but. How appearance connects to personality traits is a real enough issue to be the subject of scientific study. I’m not saying anyone in particular is doing VI right or wrong, but unless you are visually impaired or struggle with theory of mind or recognizing faces, if you are human you are drawing conclusions about people’s personalities based on their appearance whether you realize it or not.

    An easy starting point:
    https://www.theatlantic.com/health/a...d-face/381697/

    ETA, this article is unique afaik in arguing that we shouldn’t do what we do, ie, judge character from faces. I tend to agree with the original researchers’ projects, which ask either tacitly or overtly, do people do this, and do we do it accurately. I say it’s ingrained in people to gather information like this, and making moral arguments about it is rather silly. If the readings are inaccurate, then yes that is a problem.
    Last edited by golden; 09-21-2018 at 06:10 PM.
    LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”

    Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”

    LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”

  28. #2308
    Honorary Ballsack
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    3,361
    Mentioned
    110 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by golden View Post
    I posted about this earlier, but. How appearance connects to personality traits is a real enough issue to be the subject of scientific study. I’m not saying anyone in particular is doing VI right or wrong, but unless you are visually impaired or struggle with theory of mind or recognizing faces, if you are human you are drawing conclusions about people’s personalities based on their appearance whether you realize it or not.

    An easy starting point:
    https://www.theatlantic.com/health/a...d-face/381697/

    ETA, this article is unique afaik in arguing that we shouldn’t do what we do, ie, judge character from faces. I tend to agree with the original researchers’ projects, which ask either tacitly or overtly, do people do this, and do we do it accurately. I say it’s ingrained in people to gather information like this, and making moral arguments about it is rather silly. If the readings are inaccurate, then yes that is a problem.
    Except it isn't a very accurate or reliable way to understand individuals.

  29. #2309
    Feeling fucking fantastic golden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Second story
    TIM
    EIE
    Posts
    3,724
    Mentioned
    250 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nebula View Post
    Except it isn't a very accurate or reliable way to understand individuals.
    That’s part of what the research addresses. The author of the Atlantic piece interprets the data as pointing away from accuracy. Having looked into some of these studies in the past, they don’t all reach that conclusion.

    But yes, the accuracy is at least in question. However, when this article mentions studies that consistently show people can distinguish Republican vs Democrat (conservative vs liberal) faces, and winning vs losing political-candidate faces, it is taking for granted this ability to predict which was which with greater than chance accuracy. So why were the research participants able to do that? The answer is probably that it’s complicated. A generous view is that values characteristics may connect with appearance, and a dim one is that it’s all down to multiple layers of stereotyping.
    LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”

    Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”

    LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”

  30. #2310
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    15,766
    Mentioned
    1404 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Nebula
    "the reason won't work on me"

    Thanks for making the day. As the bonus people of T types which use esoterics, including the religion (which uses magical methods widely). Those ones have it as the profession, not just a fun:

    Astrology: Aleksandr Zarayev (SLI), Pavel Globa (mb ILI)
    Tarot: Aleksey Pryanikov (LSI), Sergey Savchenko (SLE), Taro4all (ILE), Yelena Naumova (LSI), Mariya Eneray (LIE)
    Religion: Vsevolod Chaplin (SLE), Andrey Kurayev (ILE), Daniil Sysoyev (ILE), Francis (ILI)

    Socionics without objective proof is almost the same obscurity stuff. You may notice people with T types on typology forums in the quantity and many of them use nonverbal VI.
    The example of one (thinks himself as LSE, - some TS, at least) which even uses physiognomy to type for years, not only nonverbal what would fit to the known psychology.

    P.S. write your sex in the profile. it's important for the usage of his/her

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    its because Sol is typing atomic interactions, i.e.: single data points. it needs to be rolled into a synthetic whole
    I just do this differently than local noobs and heretics.
    You regularly write long and muddy messages without conversations with others, like talk with yourself, but think own type as E. You are clear Fi type, not reasonable like T and not openly annoying like Fe types I perceive often. And I doubt you are EII, as your messages look as not appropriate enough - Ne types understand better which efforts have the sense.
    What you've written above relates to S types, but you seem to have it too. So your perception of what happens have that issues you think as noticing at others in more degree than you think.
    Last edited by Sol; 09-21-2018 at 11:22 PM.

  31. #2311
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    You are clear Fi type, not reasonable like T and not openly annoying like Fe types I perceive often.
    t-thanks

  32. #2312

    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    1,024
    Mentioned
    41 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Overthinker
    Everything we build up is made of 'unoriginal' conceptual bindings that makes us able to view things in a specific way. There is no 'viewing' without the abstraction which makes things seem fake, i think. Socionics is just a more explicit take on how we act and why we do so, but everything we think of the world and our place in it is at least tangentially related to how we view ourselves, ie our personality. Your original state is nonexistent because as soon as you call something a 'state' you've moved away from the original position, or square one.

  33. #2313
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    15,766
    Mentioned
    1404 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    t-thanks
    Express more Fi emotions, instead of the boring thoughts and Fe trolling, and base Te people will be glad to you.

  34. #2314
    WinnieW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    TIM
    alpha NT
    Posts
    1,695
    Mentioned
    49 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Everytime I see a post from Bertrand, I think.
    This guy seriously need to structure his texts into readable paragraphs.

  35. #2315
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    paragraphs are for the weak, I spend all day structuring the shit out of my writing, sometimes I just want to let loose

    ive got to the point where I just do tractatus style memos and exams in law

  36. #2316
    Adam Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    TIM
    ENTJ-1Te 8w7 sx/so
    Posts
    16,229
    Mentioned
    1553 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WinnieW View Post
    Everytime I see a post from Bertrand, I think.
    This guy seriously need to structure his texts into readable paragraphs.
    I showed a post of his to my SLI ex-wife, who works at the UM law school, and she said they sometimes get students who write like that. They send them to special classes to teach them to write clearly.

  37. #2317
    Feeling fucking fantastic golden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Second story
    TIM
    EIE
    Posts
    3,724
    Mentioned
    250 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Just hitting the Return key a few times at random would improve readability tremendously.
    @Bertrand dooo eeeeet
    LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”

    Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”

    LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”

  38. #2318
    Honorary Ballsack
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    3,361
    Mentioned
    110 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sol View Post
    @Nebula
    "the reason won't work on me"

    Thanks for making the day.
    I didn't say "the reason won't work on me", but ok. I was referring to your manipulative tactics, such as you just did by changing my quote in an attempt to change the meaning of what I said to fit your confirmation biases.

    Look, I don't give a shit if you're a T and F or whatever. I also don't give a shit if you think I am whatever you think I am. I was only fucking with you to give you a taste of your own medicine.

    Objectively speaking, most individuals do not fall into one or the other. I/E are on a continuum in every population study. The same can be said of N/S and T/F. T and F aren't even mutually exclusive. All "T-types" have observable feeling and ethics and visa versa. Sure, there are people on the extreme of both, but it is unlikely that you or I, or most people who take the tests will fall into 100% T or 100% F. Socionicists take advantage of this to manipulate people into subjective and artificial categories for personal gain. The presence of F in an individual doesn't rule out T in any logical or objective manner, as the presence of T in an individual doesn't rule out F. Most people have both present. These are undeniable facts.

    As the bonus people of T types which use esoterics, including the religion (which uses magical methods widely). Those ones have it as the profession, not just a fun:

    Astrology: Aleksandr Zarayev (SLI), Pavel Globa (mb ILI)
    Tarot: Aleksey Pryanikov (LSI), Sergey Savchenko (SLE), Taro4all (ILE), Yelena Naumova (LSI), Mariya Eneray (LIE)
    Religion: Vsevolod Chaplin (SLE), Andrey Kurayev (ILE), Daniil Sysoyev (ILE), Francis (ILI)

    Socionics without objective proof is almost the same obscurity stuff. You may notice people with T types on typology forums in the quantity and many of them use nonverbal VI.
    The example of one (thinks himself as LSE, - some TS, at least) which even uses physiognomy to type for years, not only nonverbal what would fit to the known psychology.
    As I have mentioned already, Socionics lacks useful empirical data and cannot survive basic scientific experimentation because it is not falsifiable, which is why it is a pseudoscience.

    I can make a claim that the above people you mentioned aren't T types because they believe in esoteric things, but I really don't care to categorize people into this system. It really is dumb. I think their beliefs are flawed, being a skeptic myself. This is a game no one can win.

    P.S. write your sex in the profile. it's important for the usage of his/her
    I'm a male
    Last edited by Skepsis; 09-22-2018 at 10:48 AM.

  39. #2319
    Exodus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    8,475
    Mentioned
    332 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by golden View Post
    I posted about this earlier, but. How appearance connects to personality traits is a real enough issue to be the subject of scientific study. I’m not saying anyone in particular is doing VI right or wrong, but unless you are visually impaired or struggle with theory of mind or recognizing faces, if you are human you are drawing conclusions about people’s personalities based on their appearance whether you realize it or not.

    An easy starting point:
    https://www.theatlantic.com/health/a...d-face/381697/

    ETA, this article is unique afaik in arguing that we shouldn’t do what we do, ie, judge character from faces. I tend to agree with the original researchers’ projects, which ask either tacitly or overtly, do people do this, and do we do it accurately. I say it’s ingrained in people to gather information like this, and making moral arguments about it is rather silly. If the readings are inaccurate, then yes that is a problem.
    They don't really explain why those studies didn't show a correlation between the actual traits and the facial structure, except to point out that they rely on self-reported traits - which, although not ideal is still a rough indication of someone's actual personality.

    "But really, these studies just affirm that people see themselves the same way others see them."

    Come on. There is a huge difference between a stranger who only gets to see a picture of you, and you, who actually know how you behave. At the very least you can say there is a correlation. Of course it won't be perfect just like with socionics, but it's still there.

  40. #2320
    Honorary Ballsack
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    3,361
    Mentioned
    110 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    They don't really explain why those studies didn't show a correlation between the actual traits and the facial structure, except to point out that they rely on self-reported traits - which, although not ideal is still a rough indication of someone's actual personality.

    "But really, these studies just affirm that people see themselves the same way others see them."

    Come on. There is a huge difference between a stranger who only gets to see a picture of you, and you, who actually know how you behave. At the very least you can say there is a correlation. Of course it won't be perfect just like with socionics, but it's still there.

    The goal seems to be to accurately predict the inner state of someone through external visual cues. This is a threat to individuality and to freethought itself. Such attempts must be held to a very high standard to prevent people from taking advantage of other, which they will try.

    Visual "cues" are filled with false assumptions and logical fallacies. Many facial expressions may have numerous internal causations, which all appear the same on the outside, but only the individual has access to. I cannot count how many times I've been falsely accused of some motivation or thought based on my facial expression. People think they know what is going on in my head because of how I present or look to them. Sometimes, people are correct, but mostly they are just guessing and happen to be lucky. I understand that this is just a part of what our brains have evolved to do, to guess intentions for social reasons. But, it is quite fallible.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •