Typing Skills

[godslave]

This thread is about forumites and Professional Typing skills and their methods. Personally I consider that any typing that is not structurally substantiated as something closer to a belief than a proper typing.

This is not to say that typings without objective analysis have no value but only that such typing are not convincing and more importantly that people who want to learn how to type can be confused and as a result don't learn much. In addition to this, there are several schools of socionics and if the typist doesn't mention his or her school of reference, it just adds confusion.

How confident are you with your typing skills and why ?

[godslave]

Let me begging this thread with some observations.

The problem in typing forumites it that most forumites don't ask enough questions. I mean, imho most people here are introverts and the lack of questions asked to the fellow forumites who want to be typed is somewhat an indicator of said introversion. You have the subject at your disposal and he or she is more than willing to answer questions but you prefer to find out for yourself (from within) a way to answer the question you haven't even verbalized. For most people here, the typing process is like a guessing, or some kind of remote viewing.

There is in most forumite typits this propensity to acquire only very few information from the subject and rely on their subconscious to do the work and bring to consciousness one or a very narrowed selection of potential "type images" (subjective understanding of sociotypes). This is an intuitive way of typing, it's not a method justified by information analysis allowing the typist to determine where they stem from (Vital/Mental - Blocks - Functions)

Typing takes time and a lot of investigations and interactions (direct or indirect (through observations)) between the typist and the subject. The advantage of this site is that typing is kinda free ! So one can bombarde the subject with questions and thus has more opportunities to gather as much data as needed to forge a meaningful and sensical typing. That said, I suspect that most forumite don't even know what are the good question to ask because most of them don't even know what to look for in the first place, because it's all about "vibe" and "force-typing"...

That said, there is no doubt that some force-typist are really talented in their art, the problem lies in our own subjectivity hence the "type-image" issue.

[The Reality Denialist]

How confident are you with your typing skills and why ?

Depends on the fingerprint they leave.






For instance, you can pretty much shovel Carl Jung, Rupert Sheldrake, Ian McGilchrist into the LII box. They just produce very similar stuff without being aware each other (at some point).

BTW I have graduate level education on regarding this sort of stuff in science. Detecting what sort of stuff I encounter. So, in general, I want to see some sort of SRM (standard reference material) exposed to different matrices just to infer certain levels. Note, that it also includes noticing false positives/negatives (ie. contradictions) so you need to have a clue how they behave when exposed to different conditions. Furthermore, I think my dataset is not complete yet.

[godslave]

Depends on the fingerprint they leave.

For instance, you can pretty much shovel Carl Jung, Rupert Sheldrake, Ian McGilchrist into the LII box. They just produce very similar stuff without being aware each other (at some point).

BTW I have graduate level education on regarding this sort of stuff in science. Detecting what sort of stuff I encounter. So, in general, I want to see some sort of SRM (standard reference material) exposed to different matrices just to infer certain levels. Note, that it also includes noticing false positives/negatives (ie. contradictions) so you need to have a clue how they behave when exposed to different conditions. Furthermore, I think my dataset is not complete yet

That's interesting indeed. This people are pretty famous and if we take an SHS approach on the context, I would say that their work stems from their social mission block (at least for the most part). However, according to Dr.G most people don't have the opportunity to really let their social mission express itself because they "use" their social adaptation block functions more (for some obscure reason). So people who have not significantly contributed to the development of society (social progress) and like Michael Pierce would say "became heroes of the History Books" are in fact the majority.

That said, I wonder if exceptional people are easier to type than "normies". I am inclined to think that they are because at least they are more visible and in a sense, their work speaks for them. However, I am not sure that what they produce or the domain in which they obtain notoriety and recognition necessarily stems exclusively from their social mission block. I mean when you think about it, we don't take a whole lot of personal satisfaction from the product of our "strong" functions but rather from our weak and valued functions (the equivalent of Super-Id block). Although I know that in Model G the concept of super-id is not really relevant and doesn't make much sense, I would argue that the "reward to risk ratio" is nonetheless relevant even from a behavioral perspective.

Personally, I prefer the information (verbal or written) analysis method. School of System Socionics has a very good method (the russian version of the website has a lot of analysis examples), the problem is of course that Socionics being not a standardized thing in terms of definitions and approaches, the SSS method is optimized for SSS and some typings results will necessary be different from that of other schools. I am trying to kinda frankensteine my own typing "method" by selecting some stuff in different schools but it's very difficult to keep it compatible and somewhat in line with all the socionics approaches. But yeah, my typing skills are still not very sharp !

Edit : BTW, I don't have any degree or graduate level education on anything. I appreciate greatly your scientific rigour !

[The Reality Denialist]

That's interesting indeed. This people are pretty famous and if we take an SHS approach on the context, I would say that their work stems from their social mission block (at least for the most part). However, according to Dr.G most people don't have the opportunity to really let their social mission express itself because they "use" their social adaptation block functions more (for some obscure reason). So people who have not significantly contributed to the development of society (social progress) and like Michael Pierce would say "became heroes of the History Books" are in fact the majority.

That said, I wonder if exceptional people are easier to type than "normies". I am inclined to think that they are because at least they are more visible and in a sense, their work speaks for them. However, I am not sure that what they produce or the domain in which they obtain notoriety and recognition necessarily stems exclusively from their social mission block. I mean when you think about it, we don't take a whole lot of personal satisfaction from the product of our "strong" functions but rather from our weak and valued functions (the equivalent of Super-Id block). Although I know that in Model G the concept of super-id is not really relevant and doesn't make much sense, I would argue that the "reward to risk ratio" is nonetheless relevant even from a behavioral perspective.

Well, the truth comes out when you tease it. Lol, I'm so guilty of this. It is too easy to find faults. Many times core personality, does not show up due to certain norms. They may have most interesting triggers, though, and I say that those are excellent clues. In someways successful (under eccentric criteria) exceptional people have gone through it, they don't have anything to hide.

[Expansion]

I can type IRL with time. It's a sorting pile and it requires a placing of a name to it, and those templates are here.

Recenty was around LSE EII dual. 100 percent bullseye.

I'm friends with a couple of SLI and I like them a lot. We just blend together, not just miximg at all.

Online I can't see you so I'm missing impressions, but I watched the EIE above in his video here, and I understand him better. It coalesced a solid type. It's got the look or mark, it was a combustion moment.

[on a peaceful hiatus]

I find it difficult to evaluate how correct I am as I am seeing more and more flaws with the theory and I'm not really sure by what measure I am typing when the type itself is far away from the theory. today I met an extremly analytical woman who was heavily involved into physics and I internally had no idea how I would even remotely convince her that she is a "feeling" or "ethical" type in typology, so by definition someone who makes decisions based on emotions. she looked like Sabine Hossenfelder.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BkZ1gXqYy4

I mean it's clear that Sabine is extremly analytical and unexpressive too but she also writes (in my opinion very awful) poetry and creates songs and dresses up for them and I would consider that pretty emotional behaviour. there isn't really a precise way to type. I ignore most typings by others but I usually think most of them are pretty awful too. I have a certain set of standards that I need to see in other people before I take them seriously. if that's not there I just see it has mindless small-talk

[khaki]

Type doesn't change but people change their types all the time regardless which tells me that from the viewpoint of the person being typed on the Internet, there's not much use to any of it other than getting an on-topic thread going and refining each other's understanding of Socionics concepts through discussion. When guessing someone's type, I usually start from evaluating the person's own assumptions about themselves and then I rely more or less 50/50 on vibe and a "syncretic" analytical approach. By syncretic I mean sticking with the 4 dichotomies, Model A blocks and function dichotomies for the most part but I find DCNH and some of Gulenko's "small groups" to be useful too.

[Simplylee]

@godslave very good points. I feel so called out , but also like grateful that you wrote this because it brought into my awareness a very common omission that I'm making in other life areas too. Because I can regonise situations that I failed to do as you describe here and it resulted in not the best performance. Your analysis is very good. And I'm glad that you verbalised it like this.
(Which makes me think that you are speaking from a function that falls on the super-id block for me.)

[Simplylee]

Let me begging this thread with some observations.

The problem in typing forumites it that most forumites don't ask enough questions. I mean, imho most people here are introverts and the lack of questions asked to the fellow forumites who want to be typed is somewhat an indicator of said introversion. You have the subject at your disposal and he or she is more than willing to answer questions but you prefer to find out for yourself (from within) a way to answer the question you haven't even verbalized. For most people here, the typing process is like a guessing, or some kind of remote viewing.

There is in most forumite typits this propensity to acquire only very few information from the subject and rely on their subconscious to do the work and bring to consciousness one or a very narrowed selection of potential "type images" (subjective understanding of sociotypes). This is an intuitive way of typing, it's not a method justified by information analysis allowing the typist to determine where they stem from (Vital/Mental - Blocks - Functions)

Typing takes time and a lot of investigations and interactions (direct or indirect (through observations)) between the typist and the subject. The advantage of this site is that typing is kinda free ! So one can bombarde the subject with questions and thus has more opportunities to gather as much data as needed to forge a meaningful and sensical typing. That said, I suspect that most forumite don't even know what are the good question to ask because most of them don't even know what to look for in the first place, because it's all about "vibe" and "force-typing"...

That said, there is no doubt that some force-typist are really talented in their art, the problem lies in our own subjectivity hence the "type-image" issue.

I mean about this above
I feel like it is very important information for me, so I suppose from my reaction to it, it must be falling on the super-id block for me.

[godslave]

@godslave very good points. I feel so called out , but also like grateful that you wrote this because it brought into my awareness a very common omission that I'm making in other life areas too. Because I can recognize situations that I failed to do as you describe here and it resulted in not the best performance. Your analysis is very good. And I'm glad that you verbalised it like this.
(Which makes me think that you are speaking from a function that falls on the super-id block for me.)

Thank you very much for your kind words. I'm glad that you found in what said some usefulness.

[The Reality Denialist]

Like a good polygraph test, we should attach electrodes to balls as well.

[Exodus]

I've been doing informal typings for 18 years and formal typings for 8 years so I think I'm pretty good at it.

It sounds like you're talking more about formal typings, and in that context it's far more effective to type people through video interviews than through text. I often don't get a strong impression through forum posts because it's a low-bandwidth medium that isn't spontaneous.

[Expansion]

TRD

The Rational Diviner

[godslave]

I've been doing informal typings for 18 years and formal typings for 8 years so I think I'm pretty good at it.

It sounds like you're talking more about formal typings, and in that context it's far more effective to type people through video interviews than through text. I often don't get a strong impression through forum posts because it's a low-bandwidth medium that isn't spontaneous.

Indeed. What I want to see more are formal typings. Obviously video interviews are the best way to acquire the data needed even if in some cases several sessions might be necessary.

Again, what I would like to see more in this forum are typings with a minimum of substantiation or "rationale" as it were, regardless of source material (text or video). I mean better arguments than just the type acronyms or stuff like "that person looks like such and such therefore ESI !" or "LSI ! definitely beta, definitely rational, definitely [pick any Reinin dichotomy that correspond to LSI]".

I am aware that developing good typing skills is not easy. I can understand that most forumites prefer to just give the result of their impressions without further explanations. Maybe some of them simply can't articulate the rationale behind their typing while being "good" at it (although it would be hard for me to judge).
I would add that obviously there are professional/excerpt typists (like yourself (?)) who propose their services and/or courses for anyone who is interested, that is also a factor to keep in mind.

[on a peaceful hiatus]

I am aware that developing good typing skills is not easy. I can understand that most forumites prefer to just give the result of their impressions without further explanations. Maybe some of them simply can't articulate the rationale behind their typing while being "good" at it (although it would be hard for me to judge).
I would add that obviously there are professional/excerpt typists (like yourself (?)) who propose their services and/or courses for anyone who is interested, that is also a factor to keep in mind.

I think there might just be a very mundane reason for most typings that get posted here without explanations: it's simply too time-consuming to do that. I would love to give detailed explanation why I think someone has a specific type and I would like to answer long posts that people create about themselves because many talk about their creative hobbies but it's just sucks too much time out of your life (at least from my point of view). I regret not saving my explanations of specific typings I have made over the years because if someone asks me why I give a specific public figure a type, I would not be able to answer because it would be too much work to research everything again and since you have only 16 types the typings themselves can get very repetitive. for most people it's just a hobby and I obviously would like the theory to be more professional but that doesn't seem possible at the moment.

let's say you think about 5 typings of forum members in your everyday life. you are literally occupying your brain with something that is completely unrelated to the real world and is probably of no concrete benefit to you outside of mental stimulation

[Expansion]

https://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...=1#post1582423

I could add Fi creative to this.

I watch his channel for plumbing tips, and not too long ago i replaced my mother inlaws water heater watching this, fyi.

[Exodus]

I think there might just be a very mundane reason for most typings that get posted here without explanations: it's simply too time-consuming to do that. I would love to give detailed explanation why I think someone has a specific type and I would like to answer long posts that people create about themselves because many talk about their creative hobbies but it's just sucks too much time out of your life (at least from my point of view). I regret not saving my explanations of specific typings I have made over the years because if someone asks me why I give a specific public figure a type, I would not be able to answer because it would be too much work to research everything again and since you have only 16 types the typings themselves can get very repetitive. for most people it's just a hobby and I obviously would like the theory to be more professional but that doesn't seem possible at the moment.

let's say you think about 5 typings of forum members in your everyday life. you are literally occupying your brain with something that is completely unrelated to the real world and is probably of no concrete benefit to you outside of mental stimulation

It's fine if you don't want to take the time to research a typing thoroughly. But in that case you should probably also refrain from giving a conclusion. The sheer amount of noise and differing opinions in the community is enough to put a lot of people off.

"I obviously would like the theory to be more professional but that doesn't seem possible at the moment."

I'm not sure what this means. Several people including myself do professional typing services. Obviously there will always be a bunch of amateurs throwing opinions around, so what doesn't seem possible exactly?

[on a peaceful hiatus]

It's fine if you don't want to take the time to research a typing thoroughly. But in that case you should probably also refrain from giving a conclusion. The sheer amount of noise and differing opinions in the community is enough to put a lot of people off.

"I obviously would like the theory to be more professional but that doesn't seem possible at the moment."

I'm not sure what this means. Several people including myself do professional typing services. Obviously there will always be a bunch of amateurs throwing opinions around, so what doesn't seem possible exactly?

I mean research itself is fine. I am very observant. It's just that writing an answer with all the arguments is a lot of time and you need to prepare for questions or explain your side better and so on and doing that for every single individual, it becomes a full-time job. I personally do not like how commercial typology is in its current state. I cannot respect it as a serious science at the moment. When money is at play you are never 100% honest. I don't think you are LII btw, not in the way I see the 16 types at least.

[Hope]

How confident are you with your typing skills and why ?

100/100

[Echo]

How does one account for life circumstances that can change the way types present themselves? For example, if an ESE is clinically depressed, they may not show the emotional affect that is characteristic of that type and appear emotionally ‘flat.’ ADHD can also make someone’s mannerisms appear similar to those of a type with an Ne ego.

[one]

Let’s be real, no reality would police you so no matter who you are you’re obviously you’re gonna be right in your typings, it’s your story
Unless you say you are now wrong, then maybe you’ll agree to some new revolutionary post or something, which means that you are right this time
Wake up

[on a peaceful hiatus]

you can't be wrong in a field that doesn't have precise definitions anyway. your idea of a type can be entirely different from another person. you can only accept someones idea and become a cult follower or opponent.

[Expansion]

I had dinner last night with this type^

It's the sound and content and ethical presentation via YT template.

He was very humorous and full on Se.

Wanting to be a free soul from being into any situation not to his liking was his mantra and exploration of everything physical. Parks, hiking and riding his tour motorcycle into the sunset. Sensory stuff and freedom was his desire.

Very nice and considerate overall.

He fit the vid. template nicely in ego presentation, and looked and talked like this YT guy.

Expansion bought his dinner last night.

It is a little strange to run across doubles like this.

[Expansion]

OP cloaked invisible, and mysteriously disappeared fell off of Earth.

[BrainlessSquid]

I can confidently type some specific types. The ones I've had close interpersonal communication and have spent some time analysing their mental faculties, natural skills, inclinations, philosophies and interests.
Some people I can type by just looking at them 101 (ESE, IEE, some LII, SEI, SEE, LIE). Others I am still at experimental level, I can spot many similar types which I haven't come to a conclusive result about their types, but I can still recognize it in a purely perceptive non judgemental way.
I rely on Greek temperaments, Gulenko's temperaments, Cognition, Life Philosophy, Intellectual Skill/Clarity, Mythological Age, Four MBTI Letters hmmmm, and Cognitive Function analysis.

Not disappointed with the results so far.

Sometimes I try to guess someone's type based off their relations with others, but it has not proven to be reliable enough

[squishycans]

@godslave

um...well...we could also be completely honest about this. These types...they are cognitive filters...archetypes...profiled patterns of behaviors. It's not reality. The patterns don't fit 1:1 and people are messy, complicated, have their own traumas/issues/experiences, own desire to live. Each type is a container without context. Each person has their own content. Each moment might build to the next...maybe you can't step in the same river twice and at any time major patterns can be altered...maybe the types are really just the shadows in the cave and just an allegory for our superficial ways of being to be transcended.

And maybe we should first understand that each person is essentially separate from another...we can not read each other's mind's and actually know another person...instead we must know another person's mind through our own mind, we must distort/project the idea of another through the silliness of our own mind. To truly know people means patience, time, effort, effective communication, two people working together to appreciate one another, and when that's all done, do the types even matter anymore? You've broken the barrier and connected in a way that's meaningful, despite being of separate minds. Isn't that what people really seek anyway? Or is it something else? What do people even want to do with Socionics? I just wanted to explain things because I've had a hard time connecting with people over my life. But I don't know what other people want and they may not even really know themselves, makes this hard to answer.

But everybody is right in what they see. It's all just pattern matching in the end. We just don't all agree on the zero-sum conclusions. But I don't think it even has to be a zero-sum game. I think Socionics can help and be useful as an overall philosophical endeavor into what it means to have personality and how we relate with one another, even if we are just talking about the shadows in the cave.

[on a peaceful hiatus]

what if the content is unique, but the container is the same? what if it really isn't about who you are as random information hits you through life which shapes you. what if it's about how you will interpret the information which is the same, but the experiences are unique. what if there are yet unknown variations between people of the same type that haven't been identified yet?

[squishycans]

Well, yes, and there are (I'd say). Maybe it's best to just say that type is one of many facets to personality. Then it leaves room to explore everything else and find the most relevant and satisfactory answers. For example, I do like the mathematics of the relations and often see it play out in other people (and myself when younger), even if Socionics itself is rather murky and not really supposed to be relationally prescriptive as an all-encompassing theory of how people relate or should relate. But then again, I'm not sure it was ever really intended that way or if that's just what most people want from it. It would be interesting to hear what prominent Socionics people, such as Gulenko, would say (if he hasn't already).

Are there articles where Socionists explore the "limits" of the theory and how they think it should be used/treated? Maybe there are, but I don't speak Russian.

[squishycans]

So this is what I've seen has more of an effect on relations and personality over Socionics, just to give an example, this kind of just came to me now after I woke up and made some coffee.

mental illness/personality disorder (dsm, includes neurodiversity)
>
unresolved trauma (maybe includes enneagram as a trauma theory)
>
ego fixation (Jungian Neurosis, too much ego, not enough self-awareness of the ego and its effects on things)
>
Political/Cultural Identification Bullshit (anything that divides/projects zero-sum representations of things)
>
Socionics type

Those are the things that come to mind without having to think about it too hard. I'm sure there's more and other people probably have different experiences/categories. Not to highjack the thread (if GodSlave cares at this point), but I'd love to hear them.

[godslave]

I've already said it somewhere here, but I've noticed that there are very few posts in this forum in which people talk about "information processing" when they are talking about sociotypes. I say a "very few" because of course I haven't read all the posts of this site (that would be a very chronophagus endeavor !) but that said, I read a lot of posts . I would say that I've read about 90% of the posts that have been posted since I subscribed and about 20-30 % of all the posts of this sites in total. But I digress.

Indeed, most people talk about how sociotypes behave, their "vibe" or even their psychology which is a nonsense when you think about it since the psychology of a subject can't be isolated from the subject's biography and since we can't possibly know the biography of every carrier of a given sociotype wr can't therefore pretend to know his or her psychology.

I've also noticed some wild generalities that go far beyond the scope of what can be assessed as general as far as TIMs are concerned. Indeed, most people here use the pronoun "they" when talking about a particular TIM/sociotype. I wonder why and what does it reveals about these people own sociotype. Why do I prefer to use the word "it" of simply TIM and what does my preference in that matter reveals about my own sociotype ? It seems like there is this tendency to mistake the map for the territory.

I would add that some people here overestimate their "typing skills", that is most certainly an expression of the fire of youth ! The lack of consensus when it comes to "type images" adds confusion to the cacophony it induces. I've noticed that certain people are still biased by MBTI and/or OPS stuff (even if they would tell you that it's not the case !) and translate the "type images" they acquired through these types indicators to their "equivalent" in socionics in a 1:1 ratio.

It is sad to admit that to me, almost all the typing I see here are not really convincing to say the least. Most of these typings are devoid of any real argumentation or even proper formal analysis (not even close !) because it seems to me that most people here simply don't know how to use the Model as an assessment tool but they rather use the "Typing-Force" (when they are Type-force sensitive which is not always the case !). I have to factor the typist in each typing I see because of the lack of analysis, all I can do with these typing is to find some internal coherence between the typist and his or her own "type images". In other words, to me each typing is just a subjective opinion that is at best in correlation with the understanding of the TIM images of the typist.

A very few people here have actually demonstrated their ability to produce at least some kind of formal analysis, @Lorenzo is one of them (there is also a forumite of whom I forgot the name and who typed himself (herself ?) as EII and gives some substantiations in typing even if it is just based on type descriptions correlation (it's better than nothing !). That said, sadly even forumites who are supposed to have 4D Ti (esp LII) and to whom such thing shouldn't cost much mental energy don't demonstrate an effective usage of the Model or produced proper typing analysis. I guess that these types are better at making models than actually using them effectively.

I am the first to admit that my typing skills suck. Of course typology is not a hard science but sadly even some pro-typists fail to demonstrate via proper analysis and usage of the Model (whatever it is) reliable typing skills and methodology so that we can at least trust their professional expertise and assume that they know what they are doing. I suspect (in fact I'm sure of it) that some pro-typists just mentally try to correlate (via process of elimination) the behavior and energy of their subject/client to one of their 16 type-images, it simply doesn't get further than that. I mean, some people can type according to a freaking picture for God's sake !

 

[on a peaceful hiatus]

I think there needs to be a discussion about what a type is or isn't because due to the sheer number of people it cannot really be about personality characteristics or traits or trust in yourself. it just simply can't because there are only 16 types and 8 billion people. I find it likely that all type descriptions and theoretical theories surrounding socionics are really just based on specific sample sizes.

[FDG]

I've been dealing with the matter for almost 20 years (probably I am one of the oldest forum members still active), and for my job I meet a lot of people, so I am pretty confident.

However, with some people it seems really easy, with others I have zero clue. It's like - there is no fixed rule.

[Exodus]

I think there needs to be a discussion about what a type is or isn't because due to the sheer number of people it cannot really be about personality characteristics or traits or trust in yourself. it just simply can't because there are only 16 types and 8 billion people. I find it likely that all type descriptions and theoretical theories surrounding socionics are really just based on specific sample sizes.

A type is a category of people. There is no problem categorizing people into 16 types any more than there is categorizing 7 or 8 billion people into several hundred nationalities or 2 genders. It can be difficult to assign the type since it's based on internal characteristics but the number is not the problem. If anything a typology with fewer types is easier to apply, all other things being equal.

[humyn]

I don't believe anyone has ever been perfect at all of their typings. I think it just takes confidence and knowing the Jungian meanings of the elements.
Some people are easily read, others not so much.

[loopyclouds]

Sometimes I wonder how any of us can trust any anecdote about intertype relations written by others, when you look at the typing of a celebrity for example, and everyone has wildly different ideas on what their type is. For example, I’m convinced Taylor Swift is EIE, while someone else is adamant she is LSI or EII. How are we to even trust each other’s typings of people in our daily lives? This is why I take any person’s stories of intertype relations with 10 spoonfuls of salt.

[loopyclouds]

I've been dealing with the matter for almost 20 years (probably I am one of the oldest forum members still active), and for my job I meet a lot of people, so I am pretty confident.

However, with some people it seems really easy, with others I have zero clue. It's like - there is no fixed rule.

Same here, I get what you mean. Personally, I think when it comes to my typings of people, my supervisees and extinguishment types are easiest to type. I find business and sometimes beneficiary types the most difficult to type. The difficulty of typing certain types probably stems from how our IMEs perceive other IMEs, though I wouldn’t specifically know how our perception of people’s IMEs may be affected by our own.