My turn for for my VI
Last edited by MOP; 02-23-2010 at 05:19 AM.
I think you look kind of like me.
LII.
LII-Ne
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
- Blair Houghton
Johari
Same quadra as T.J. Miller, son.
Moonlight will fall
Winter will end
Harvest will come
Your heart will mend
I think he's alpha.
Moonlight will fall
Winter will end
Harvest will come
Your heart will mend
One picture is not enough for typing.
First guess: ISFj.
Anyone seen yours ?Originally Posted by JohnDo
I've read some of your other posts and you seem to be ISFj, indeed.
What are your test results?
What dichotomies are you unsure of?
What functions are you unsure of?
Test results, VI, dichotomies.
Not stuff I would particularly use for typing.
Okay, with test results it's the same as with dichotomies: just a starting place.
VI definitely works - if you have typed enough people.
It might kind of work, but I don't see how it has anything to do with Socionics, especially how you have gone about it, similar to user:Maritsa. It is highly subjective too. VI is not objective. To me it corrupts Socionics and bends itself a service of new understanding into the self's mind.
you take all these things into consideration: VI, test results, function identification, personal feelings and the subjects input, and then you make a decision. It's really not that hard to understand.
i think delta or alpha.
asd
It has to do with Socionics just because there is definitely a correlation between personality and body language/facial expressions. Therefore V.I. is a main stream method for type diagnosis...
There is also a correlation between type and bodily shape/facial structure. But this correlation is hard to see because there are different subtypes who look very different. That's why some people even say there is no correlation. In my opinion they should just type more people, use subtypes and they would see...
Not at all. Maritsa uses a method to determine every single dichotomy by V.I. - that's not reliable though there is the tendency Maritsa described.
I use V.I. by comparing the person I want to type to people I have already typed. That definitely works. Why shouldn't it?!
I also use a self-discovered pattern to determine the DCNH subtype of a person. I'm still sure it is a correct approach.
No method of type diagnosis is objective! Descriptions, functions, relationships? They are all subjective...
It doesn't corrupt socionics because it is a part of mainstream socionics.
Well no, VI opinions are quite subjective. I probably don't agree with many people's VI-based typings here. But if someone makes a direct and reasonable reference to Socionics, which VI rarely does, then it can be agreed upon. Noting reasons for why somebody is for example Fe-based, is much better than saying that you see Fe in somebody's face. The latter does not make any sense, and usually the correlation someone thinks they see is crap.
However it can be safe to say, by using this photo alone, that Jung is surely an ILI.
Secondly, you're assuming you're good at VI, which you aren't. No one is. Just accept it. These kinds of things are too intricate. However there still is hope.
You are good at using the resources of traditional Socionics to make some general claims, and can easily type people by using your mind and the quantities of information available to you every second. This I am sure you can fulfill, if you look at how the original theory was put in to place. This method will not give you constantly wrong answers.
You take VI into consideration along with tons of other factors. Now shut up. Shut up and stop making a problem where there isn't one.
About MOP's type:
1.) 13 different test results indicate weak ability of introspection -> sensory, XSXX
2.) Doing tests 13 times is going-by-the-book bahaviour. -> sensory and judging, XSXj
3.) Fe not valued -> Gamma or Delta, ISFj or ESTj
About V.I.:
1.) My first guess was ISFj
2.) Huitzi said ISFj in a different thread
3.) Behaviour typical of ISFj
So V.I. seems to have worked in this case - I said ISFj just by looking at the picture and it still seems to be true...
Tests are not reliable. They work good for people who already know who they are - they fail for people who are not sure about themselves...
You distinguish between people who use it properly and others who don't. Well, I also like most ESFjs and dislike most ENFjs. But you seem to be ISFj...What did I write to give you the impression that I didn't value.
Removed at User Request
Oh, there is a large problem, that apparently you are blind to. Types exist without VI. Various people can have similar expressions, similar gazes and looks, without being the same type. Like any average instance, it could be that they are conflicting types and VI similarly. Why would you want to take VI into consideration if it doesn't work?
II) My point about dichotomies is that they don't work as effectively. If you are to type as ISFP in dichotomy, but relate a whole lot to, then chances are you are not
III) My point about tests is that they don't tell you anything. There is no theory or information available with them. It merely tells you an answer, but you have no basis for which to understand.
.... Cancer exists without MRI scans. But that does mean we should not use MRIs to detect cancer? No, that makes no sense. Your statement is retarded.
VI does work. It works a percentage of the time. Which is why I keep repeating to you it is used in combination with other methods as supporting evidence.
A mamogram can detect breast cancer a percentage of the time, which is why we use it. But we also use other methods for detecting cancer like MRIs. MRIs are more expensive and mamograms are quicker.
So there are many tests you can use to help make a diagnosis.
If a doctor detects a lump in a womans breast doing a mamogram, then takes bloodwork and notices elevated white blood cell count, then questions the patient and the patient reports symptoms consistent with early stage breast cancer, he has just used several rudimentary tests altogether to create a fair case for her having breast cancer. None of these tests alone prove she has breast cancer. Now what does he do next? He orders an MRI. That is, he suspects she has breast cancer.
I am honestly baffled you're having trouble with this.
Last edited by crazedrat; 02-17-2010 at 10:42 AM.
This is not an excuse to waste time on VIing or even think about VI. You need to understand the information elements. A contrast of IM and VI (and testing, and dichotomies, whatever you'd like to throw in there) is not going to make a clear enough distinction. Quadra is quadra, IM is IM, that is Socionics and that is what you need to pinpoint. Stop making excuses to weigh more options.
You are not considering the process of diagnosis from rudimentary testing to detailed and more exhaustive testing.
I also think you're underestimating the accuracy of VI. There is a thread on this site where a girl posted 5 of her friends in a picture. She knew all their types. She asked us to VI them. Based on VI alone, I got 4 of 5 types correct and was off by one dichotomy for the fifth person. Maybe the real problem here is you are terrible at VI. Maybe you dislike VI because many people VI you as ENTp? Whatever the reason, I'm no longer interested in discussing this with you. You've heard my argument, it's up there.
MRI is the medium for coding cancer. VI has nothing to do with coding Socionics, it does not code a personality. It attempts to mimic a basic understanding of personality through someone's facial expressions. That is wrong and inefficient, and does not help.
Right. Typing someone from their picture works about 6 or 7 percent of the time. That is pretty decent. But if you look at a video, the chances might improve slightly that you get their type correct, because you are receiving their language output in a form of personal values, and where some glimpses of temperament can be discerned. However the essence of the visual aid does not set upon someone a quadra or value, (no jumping for joy does not indicate one as an Fe type, as this piece of information is unquestionably out of context, etc.) So in the case of a video, you receive what is called relevant information, and in this case your chances in successfully typing someone considerably multiply.
If you replace MRI with mamogram the analogy still works just as well. Mamograms are rudimentary tests like VI is a rudimentary test. Your refutation is irrelevant and misses the point of the analogy. I would like you to reread the post.
It works much, much more than 6 or 7 percent of the time. I'd estimate it works about 60 percent of the time. You are being a retarded little shit and I order you to shut up.
Nonsense. V.I. is not a waste of time but the quickest and most reliable of all methods. It works intuitively. You see someone and think: "Hey, I know an XXXx who looks exactly like him." Even people who never heard of "Socionics" use this method!! Someone reminds them of someone they know - and they know his type without knowing the term "Socionics"...
Skillful socionists use V.I. as the main method of type diagnosis. It requires a mental database of the types of dozens or hundreds of people, of course...
Typing without V.I. is a method for beginners.
People who don't use V.I. as main method or even not at all
- have not enough experience. You need to know the types of many people, of course.
- are sensory. Sensors are bad at V.I., of course.
- don't use subtypes. V.I. only works with subtypes, of course.
Not convinced with your coincidental stories or irrelevant analogies. It is all hype and is a bad excuse for understanding Socionics.
Unfortunately, that doesn't work. Your logic is very internal.
Shut the fuck up.
If V.I. doesn't work for you it doesn't mean that it doesn't work at all!
- you might be bad at typing (are you even sure of your own type?!)
- you might be sensory. Then V.I. will probably never work for you.
- you might have typed not enough people. Then it can't work at the moment.
- you might type without DCNH subtypes. Then it won't work well...
I'm not about to take lessons in Socionics from user:CheGuevara, "the noob with all the rules to make it right." You should develop your own theory. Start a clan.
Removed at User Request
V.I. is an intuitive method so it definitely works better for intuitors...
User: maritsa33 uses a sensory V.I. method most people laugh about
User: polikujm is of the opinion that V.I. doesn't work. Unnecessary to mention that people who are not even sure of their own types can only be called absolute beginners. How should an absolute beginner be able to use V.I. which is a method for experts
If life were really like this, I would have shriveled up into a ball and died a long time ago. Luckily for me, I live in the real world.
I'm happy to see someone finally figuring that out.
Removed at User Request
Well you're the one who disagrees with everyone on typing. It's already proven that I disagree with various people on here who think I am an alpha type. However, excluding these necessities, as a sole reality, there are people who do not chose to understand the originating terms of Socionics, or even mention their awareness of any sort of originating terms of Socionics. That is my biggest problem here. VI is much more fluff than anything standard.
Sorry, perhaps you did not grasp the context of this. I was being sarcastic.It appeared to me that you and crazed defend the same thing, just didn't put it well into words. So I didn't understand what are you arguing about.
I'm not going to be here to find every single logical flaw with your statements, so please stop using me as a tool for your subconscious personal development.User: polikujm is of the opinion that V.I. doesn't work. Unnecessary to mention that people who are not even sure of their own types can only be called absolute beginners. How should an absolute beginner be able to use V.I. which is a method for experts
I don't know how I could of possibly been any more clear. If you reread my post where I discuss the process doctors use to diagnose cancer, and compare mamograms to VI in how we use them as a tool for diagnosis, the value of VI becomes so obvious I would kick anyones ass for disagreeing with me.It appeared to me that you and crazed defend the same thing, just didn't put it well into words. So I didn't understand what are you arguing about
This wasn't a matter of two people talking past one another. This was polikjum dismissing VI as utterly useless. His statements like "VI is accurate about 6 percent of the time" were not misinterpreted, they were simply dead wrong, and that is final.
I have stated my opinion of the matter I have addressed. Though I don't know about your type, I only know an answer coming from a method of VIing is not something I would be willing to consider, unless it has some meat attached to it.
There was a user named energystar who wrote a nice self description that illustrated a clear typing of LIE, which is more or less just an initial opinion. Perhaps you can follow suite and bring me some meat to work with, if you want my opinion. Or else, it will take more time. Recalling a post history would be my first requirement of action.
Reply With Quote
