I see a lot of weird and vague arguments for and against typings, and I think a lot of the confusion could be cleared up by remembering what sociotype means in the first place.
A sociotype is a TYPE OF INFORMATION METABOLISM.
It is NOT a set of behavioral traits like "loud", "gregarious", "antisocial", "finnicky", "nice", "passive", etc.
So while, in practice, it is easiest to invoke comparisons to people of known type or concrete behavioral traits, it is ALWAYS PREFERABLE to instead characterize a person's information metabolism.
What does this mean? For example, if I see that someone uses
actively all the time and seems to avoid using
, I can conclude that they are probably an
ego type. It's key to define what "using
" means here.
In short, information metabolism is the input, processing, creation, and output of information.
There is NO ONE OBSERVABLE TRAIT that is unique to a particular type, nor does any type always have a particular observable trait. There are many people of the same type that are nothing alike at first glance, yet share something more abstract.
If you stick to this methodology your typings will be more robust. It is necessary to gain experience with concrete examples of the types, but I
still meet people who are nothing like anybody I knew before, and in that case I am forced to resort to more abstract typing methods.
The semantics of the information elements are simpler and more objectively apparent than anything else in socionics. Learn them and profit.
Originally Posted by thehotelambush
I see a lot of weird and vague arguments for and against typings, and I think a lot of the confusion could be cleared up by remembering what sociotype means in the first place.
Reply With Quote