Why "typing" doesn't work

[Singu]

In Socionics, "typing" is thought of to be some kind of a mysterious process, something that is arrived via an "intuitive feeling" of a person that they're typing, as it were, which has no clear explanation of its processes. You could say that it's a kind of a pattern-recognition process, comparing someone with many people that you have recognized in the past that you have stored in your brain database.

Which can be fine, if this "typing" done by individuals are thought of to be some kind of a diagnosis, a kind of a pre-screening process before taking more "objective" measurements via tests. Just like how medical doctors quickly diagnose patients and look for symptoms before they advise the patients into taking medical tests.

But no such objective "tests" exist in Socionics (which, btw, MBTI has "solved" this problem via tests, but the problem is that you may get different results every time you take the test). And even if there were such tests, no tests can have 100% accuracy, so there are going to be some false reports. And if you're going to "test" this via ITR, then it's going to be a circularity as the ITR itself would require an explanation for why it works the way it does.

Nonetheless, "typings" done by individuals are nothing more than subjective opinions of the typist which has no objective explanation, i.e. an explanation of how one arrived at that conclusion that can be explained in a rational and an objective manner. Which means that individual Socionics typings have no relation with reality whatsovever. It is nonsensical.

[Bertrand]

typing occurs whether people resort to socionics or not. even if its not conscious, you could say how you react to a person, despite yourself, is a manifestation of the same phenomenon. the problem of type is nothing less than the problem of misunderstanding itself, just across a different level

[lavos]

Until we have some objetive (a machine) way of determining people's types, subjetive evaluation is the only way. If you have good observational capabilities, the ITR's can be observed, and these are conclusive proofs, but not everyone if apt to do this. Socionics has tests in a similar way to MBTI, but they are not really conclusive proofs. Ultimately, what you can do (what I usually do) is look for individuals that seem to be able to type people proficiently (Sol, silke...) and compare my own evaluation to theirs. If we "see" the same thing, I take that as confirmation that it is probably correct.

As you can see, it's all subjetive and assumptions on top of assumptions. But is the best we have for now.

[lavos]

typing occurs whether people resort to socionics or not. even if its not conscious,

I think you might be onto something with this. I suspect everyone comes equipped with the ability to subconciously discern a person's type. And it happens automatically every time you interact with someone, even though you can't verbalize it. What I'm not sure is if we know that a person is our conflictor, or our dual or whichever. But we know what they are, even if it's not labeled. What Socionics does is providing us with the knowledge to name it, as a conscious process.

[Sol]

It works when is correctly done. As allows to get results which fit to the classical theory.
Just type good. And use the correct theory - the core one, without heresies like Reinin.

In Socionics, "typing" is thought of to be some kind of a mysterious process, something that is arrived via an "intuitive feeling" of a person

Besides N methods, also T ones are used like tests, questionnaires, behavior analysis.
Though besides tests the rest has N _part_ too, as interpretation is speculative, can be multi-valued due to types nature (they are about balance, not about absolute and clear), non-types factors, how to take into account context and the weights of factors, etc. It's not more mysterious than other assumptions. Subjectivism is common for humanitarian regions, including psychology.
Technical regions use stochastic models which are also about probabilities and not about clear result. Also check about modern physics, about quantum physics - there you'll find about more "magic" described by scientific terms.

Singu. Something is wrong with you, as you reject the evidence of tests usage.

[falsehope]

Typing people requires some patience on both sides and doing it slowly and methodically can yield reliable results. The problem is that it's very easy to mistype when concluding on single facts (for example, based on single sentence to conclude someone is Ti, while it would be needed to analyse all sentences and assign a function to each, and then if one or two of the functions are significantly more frequent then one can conclude something). And also making assumptions and then bending facts to "validate" them (for example, guessing that someone is Se ego and then assigning sentences to Se ego regardless their meaning is hardly even connected to Se). And also wrongly assigning facts to functions (only obvious things can be reliably assigned, and many facts presented by people cannot be assigned at all because they are not put into context to properly understand the reason).

The problem is, that to type people it requires a lot of information, the more the better. And then logically analysing it without making above logical errors. Our questionnaire is too small to type people and not all the questions are really useful, so it would be good to develop a new one. Maybe some better than the usual test questions, because tests are usually poor.

The problems with tests that they are working on assumptions. They assume that if you have this IE you should have this and this behaviour. But tests should be trained the way that known types should give answers and based on these answers the types should be calculated in future. And these answers would be very different from from previous assumptions.

So problems with accurate typings depend on the discipline of socionics and also on better questionnaires and tests, which might be developed in the future. Normally it would happen if some company wanted to invest into it and would hire someone with experience and some brains.

[Bertrand]

I think you might be onto something with this. I suspect everyone comes equipped with the ability to subconciously discern a person's type. And it happens automatically every time you interact with someone, even though you can't verbalize it. What I'm not sure is if we know that a person is our conflictor, or our dual or whichever. But we know what they are, even if it's not labeled. What Socionics does is providing us with the knowledge to name it, as a conscious process.

right you might say, its a real phenomenon, typology simply (attempts to) give it rational articulation

[Muddy]

Disregarding socionics for not being completely objective is ignorant if you ask me. The majority of mainstream science and "expert knowledge" involves subjectivity. Just because something is subjective in its methods doesn't mean it can't yield tangible results.

The problem I think are all these different interpretations within socionics. Some people go by Jung's definitions, some people go by Gulenko's, some go by WSS's, some people go by their own self-made interpretations, etc. How the hell is a socionics newcomer supposed to not get mislead by bullshit with some many people disagreeing on the basics? I we could at least get everyone to agree on stuff like what the IEs are exactly then typing would be much more easy and effective.

[Bertrand]

its a lot like the common law system, best is to start historically but its a big undertaking. a recapitulation would be great but it fundamentally presents the problem of whose version of events do we go off, which is the very point at issue. at the end of the day people have to make up their own mind after having been exposed to all the evidence or risk being mislead based on trust in a single source

the thing is, if we take for granted that socionics only rationalizes what people already do, its less a problem than it seems, because people are going to bring their system to bear whether they know it or not, in "choosing" an interpretation that suits them. this is precisely why there are so many schools to begin with, because they are themselves expressions of personality. so in the final analysis I actually don't think its that big a problem. people want to converge on one point, but if you could really subsume personality into such a point, it would actually eliminate a vital part of human freedom which is the ability to view things from truly different perspectives

[Number 9 large]

Yeayea socionics isnt objective. Nexxxxxt

[NdFeB08]

Lol Sol typed me as "I,T most possibly SLI" in my fake account video typing thread (Rei) while on this one (just based on a post) he said in good broken english "emotional, to the degree of thinkless" cause I cussed him out lmao.
He even typed me on his own quadra but I'm sure as hell we don't get along.
I spoke with him via private messaging using some made-up stories too on that other account. Although the stuff I told him about my family was true though, yeah, that much was true!
Got you niggah whuz gud?!

As for typing, I guess until there's some sort of brain scanning to determine the areas of the brain that are most active in a person and this can be proven to be related to specific cognitive functions, typing remains mostly obscure.

Sure, sometimes people will reach consensus in the types of certain individuals, and some feel very confident in their typing skills, but the type itself still can't be proven, no matter how many personal anecdotes and theoretical data we have. And don't get me wrong, I've read a lot of Jung's stuff and respect his work - same for the Socionics theory.

For now everything is subject to interpretation and if people are hellbent on seeing a certain pattern and making the pieces fall in a way that's harmonious to their own version of reality, you bet your ass they'll see that shit.

[lavos]

nasty...

@Sol, it looks like you got supervised !

[Bertrand]

lol my best LSE friend got catfished super hard in the same way [1]. sorry Sol, its true



[1] I told him early on it was a scam but he could not believe it

[ooo]

It would be best to stick with the functions, the IEs that describe the cognitive functions. Then work your way to the types based on the functions rather than rely on what the forum says, or what your bestfriend’s type is, or what the hell some people you’ve never met think psychological things should be like for you.

The type doesn’t and shouldn’t describe if you smile or not, how much you look down in a conversation or how much you like math over ping pong. All of this is the sort of bias that science should work on to eliminate. For all of this does not describe your cognitive style, which is instead based on your used (not favourite) functions.

[Skepsis]

There is no such thing as an objectively true type. This is reality. At best, they are aides for the self-aware. At worse, dogmatic pseudoscience.

[Chae]

In Socionics, "typing" is thought of to be some kind of a mysterious process, something that is arrived via an "intuitive feeling" of a person that they're typing, as it were, which has no clear explanation of its processes. You could say that it's a kind of a pattern-recognition process, comparing someone with many people that you have recognized in the past that you have stored in your brain database.

Which can be fine, if this "typing" done by individuals are thought of to be some kind of a diagnosis, a kind of a pre-screening process before taking more "objective" measurements via tests. Just like how medical doctors quickly diagnose patients and look for symptoms before they advise the patients into taking medical tests.

But no such objective "tests" exist in Socionics (which, btw, MBTI has "solved" this problem via tests, but the problem is that you may get different results every time you take the test). And even if there were such tests, no tests can have 100% accuracy, so there are going to be some false reports. And if you're going to "test" this via ITR, then it's going to be a circularity as the ITR itself would require an explanation for why it works the way it does.

Nonetheless, "typings" done by individuals are nothing more than subjective opinions of the typist which has no objective explanation, i.e. an explanation of how one arrived at that conclusion that can be explained in a rational and an objective manner. Which means that individual Socionics typings have no relation with reality whatsovever. It is nonsensical.

Always get that feeling whenever @thehotelambush or @Sol try to analyze anything about me or others like they have a decent clue or live inside our brains. This doesn't take a grain of salt, it takes a:



BIG ASS SALTY ASS FREAKING ASS GAY MOUNTAIN!

[Sol]

Always get that feeling whenever thehotelambush or Sol try to analyze anything about me or others like they have a decent clue or live inside our brains.

In case thehotelambush also has base T type - such strong impression can be explained by your base F type.

> BIG ASS SALTY ASS FREAKING ASS GAY MOUNTAIN!

I see women breasts there. Nice to know you are "straight", Chae.
But Viktor seems is not your dream. He can be Fe valued, but extraverted type. We both prefer cute and shy introverts.

[Aylen]

Lol Sol typed me as "I,T most possibly SLI" in my fake account video typing thread (Rei) while on this one (just based on a post) he said in good broken english "emotional, to the degree of thinkless" cause I cussed him out lmao.
He even typed me on his own quadra but I'm sure as hell we don't get along.
I spoke with him via private messaging using some made-up stories too on that other account. Although the stuff I told him about my family was true though, yeah, that much was true!
Got you niggah whuz gud?!

As for typing, I guess until there's some sort of brain scanning to determine the areas of the brain that are most active in a person and this can be proven to be related to specific cognitive functions, typing remains mostly obscure.

Sure, sometimes people will reach consensus in the types of certain individuals, and some feel very confident in their typing skills, but the type itself still can't be proven, no matter how many personal anecdotes and theoretical data we have. And don't get me wrong, I've read a lot of Jung's stuff and respect his work - same for the Socionics theory.

For now everything is subject to interpretation and if people are hellbent on seeing a certain pattern and making the pieces fall in a way that's harmonious to their own version of reality, you bet your ass they'll see that shit.

I liked you right away on both accounts. You still remind me of someone I once knew...

When I saw your pic recently I thought you looked just like EO girl. I wondered if you changed your username.

Having said that, I have now put you at risk of being typed IEI, since "friendly sympathy" and all that.

[Raver]

@Singu You remind me of an atheist shouting in a religious forum that religion is nonsense, God doesn't exist and everyone needs to wake up to this reality. Then there are other atheists who are here for non-Socionics reasons and agnostics like myself and others who keep an open mind about everything who either are on your side if they're an atheist or see where you are coming from if they're an agnostic.

Like we find it admirable that you care so much, but we don't say anything to the believers because it is kind of a futile endeavor. We see what you see, but also realize people need to figure out and come to terms with their beliefs in anything on their own rather than having it forced upon them. I don't think you're completely right or wrong either. With psychological theories there is a ton of grey area when dealing with a field based on a semantical map of the mind to draw definitive conclusions.

[Singu]

@Singu You remind me of an atheist shouting in a religious forum that religion is nonsense, God doesn't exist and everyone needs to wake up to this reality. Then there are other atheists who are here for non-Socionics reasons and agnostics like myself and others who keep an open mind about everything who either are on your side if they're an atheist or see where you are coming from if they're an agnostic.

Like we find it admirable that you care so much, but we don't say anything to the believers because it is kind of a futile endeavor. We see what you see, but also realize people need to figure out and come to terms with their beliefs in anything on their own rather than having it forced upon them. I don't think you're completely right or wrong either. With psychological theories there is a ton of grey area when dealing with a field based on a semantical map of the mind to draw definitive conclusions.

Well it's a criticism of the theory, not the "believers". Although I do have a problem with people who think that the theory is "real" and push their theory onto other people (even if they admit that Socionics is "just an unproven hypothesis"). Any theory is going to get shredded to bits, and that's a good thing, because the theory that hasn't been scathed by the criticism (yet) is going to survive. And even then, that theory will eventually get shredded to bits. If the "believers" want to defend their cherished theory, then it's their problem (although I have no idea why they would take it personally).

I do think that Socionics does more harm than good, in general. Just take a look at what kind of "advice" or "insights" that people give in the name of an unproven theory. It limits people in a negative way.

[Raver]

Well it's a criticism of the theory, not the "believers". Although I do have a problem with people who think that the theory is "real" and push their theory onto other people (even if they admit that Socionics is "just an unproven hypothesis"). Any theory is going to get shredded to bits, and that's a good thing, because the theory that hasn't been scathed by the criticism (yet) is going to survive. And even then, that theory will eventually get shredded to bits. If the "believers" want to defend their cherished theory, then it's their problem (although I have no idea why they would take it personally).

I do think that Socionics does more harm than good, in general. Just take a look at what kind of "advice" or "insights" that people give in the name of an unproven theory. It limits people in a negative way.

The problem with Socionics is that people take it too far and try to make it be something it isn't. It can never be a way to fully describe people's personalities. People's personalities are far too complex to fit neatly into 16 categorical boxes. At best, Socionics is just a method to describe how people perceive and communicate the world around them.

This is a very limited aspect of our personalities and it is good to look at Socionics this way. However, if you look at it as anything more than that, that is where the problems begin. Non-typological psychology does a better job describing people's inner motives and how they function.

Heck, even the Big Five is superior to Socionics when it comes to this. This is why Big Five is respected and used by many professionals worldwide and MBTI/Socionics is not taken anywhere near as seriously. Even psychiatry as flawed and detrimental as it is, does a better job than Socionics in describing our foibles.

The problem is that psychology in and of itself is a soft science and Socionics is even softer than that so naturally, what it describes will be limited and even flawed in some form. With lots of subjective and inconclusive evidence to back it up.

[Bertrand]

inasmuch as socionics is used only as a tool to rubber stamp or reify or assert upon others pre-existing prejudice it is bad. this is why it is best to think of it as self directed therapy, but one must first and foremost really mean that and not use it as another layer to obscure and justify the aforementioned prejudice. like kierkegaard says, the whole thing is a swindle without love. or jung, "all psychotherapy can be replaced by sufficient moral effort". singu generally seems to reflect the point of view that socionics can only subsume love not be used by it.

the problem is it can become a bubble of prejudice to say "well all I see is people using it wrongly" its like-- well we each have our fingers pointed at eachother in that case, over what amounts to how we use words. whether someone "uses" socionics correctly then is not something you can determine from the outside, so this idea that it should essentially be censored is just reserving the right for oneself to stand above others and make that determination alone, rather than allowing for the possibility that one could be just as right or wrong as anyone else, and in that case the whole project may in fact be justified. its that point of view that is authoritarian and ultimately more harmful than any potential misuse of socionics could be. it also assumes that some degree of "harm" isn't part of a larger process. seizing control of it in the name of preventing harm is becoming precisely the thing it seeks to prevent, absent some godlike and final knowledge of what is really going on with other people internally and how that will spin out in the future. its also a big fat waste of time because even if Singu shot up a school in protest it won't stop people from using socionics

I see Singu's point too, its just a dead end

I'm tempted to say all I see are people using enneagram wrong, too. but I know it serves as a ladder for some people, so it doesn't need to be perfect in my eyes in order to justify its existence

I feel like if singu really believes people are hurting themselves it justifies invading other people's space in order to rain on their parade. but i think if one wants to cash in on the assumption one is essentially noble to do that they need to take it all the way and find nobility in their potential rejection and mockery, not be offended if it should happen. if one is really just wanting to rise in the ranks and can't take the resultant consequences whatever they be, (i.e. they have only the "im right" outcome in mind) they don't really own their idea, because the idea itself should be what is most real and therefore sufficient. in other words, the best indicator of possession the truth is a degree of equanimity. this is actually why there must be a hell because if you own all of this then you know people send themselves to hell, and some people can't be saved, there has to be a place of their own. this is all just faith in God over some human outcome

[Singu]

Using Socionics "with love" means not using it (or at least you'd be careful to mention that it's unproven and that it's just one theory), because it's not accurately describing reality as it is (as far as we know) and will hence lead to false conclusions.

If it IS describing reality, then it should be able to come up with objective explanations, for that it is describing something that is real, something that is outside of ourselves and not merely something that happens inside of our heads.

So if you SUBJECTIVELY think that it's true, but you can't be certain for that it is subjective, then you urge others that it is true...? Well, that is authoritarianism for you. You're saying that your own subjectivity should be followed by others, for no other reason than that you've thought of it.

[Bertrand]

youre just saying love can't be less than perfect, but I would say people love as much as theyre capable of. socionics is just co extensive with human limitation in its useful application. you're setting an absurd and unreal standard, which is itself is a lack of love for others, because in the name a concept you reject humanity. its declarative over embodied lipservice to the notion of love with socionics as your whipping boy, when its like you could make a much better case over "things that should end" with whats going on in the world. its like really, attacking socionics is your love for humanity? that is hard for me to comprehend. if love is what you say it is then isn't there an implied duty for you to be reaching higher than this?

if you're saying you lack love and its why socionics is bad (to you, and by extension the world) I would agree

[ooo]

Singu <3

[Aramas]

In Socionics, "typing" is thought of to be some kind of a mysterious process, something that is arrived via an "intuitive feeling" of a person that they're typing, as it were, which has no clear explanation of its processes. You could say that it's a kind of a pattern-recognition process, comparing someone with many people that you have recognized in the past that you have stored in your brain database.

Which can be fine, if this "typing" done by individuals are thought of to be some kind of a diagnosis, a kind of a pre-screening process before taking more "objective" measurements via tests. Just like how medical doctors quickly diagnose patients and look for symptoms before they advise the patients into taking medical tests.

But no such objective "tests" exist in Socionics (which, btw, MBTI has "solved" this problem via tests, but the problem is that you may get different results every time you take the test). And even if there were such tests, no tests can have 100% accuracy, so there are going to be some false reports. And if you're going to "test" this via ITR, then it's going to be a circularity as the ITR itself would require an explanation for why it works the way it does.

Nonetheless, "typings" done by individuals are nothing more than subjective opinions of the typist which has no objective explanation, i.e. an explanation of how one arrived at that conclusion that can be explained in a rational and an objective manner. Which means that individual Socionics typings have no relation with reality whatsovever. It is nonsensical.

It does work, sometimes. There's just no proof of it. Socionics is not a science. Never has been. Dunno if it ever will be.

Because Socionics is not a science, because there are no objective tests of type, it's pointless to argue about Socionics with someone who can't see your perspective. People still try, though.

[Singu]

I think you might be onto something with this. I suspect everyone comes equipped with the ability to subconciously discern a person's type. And it happens automatically every time you interact with someone, even though you can't verbalize it. What I'm not sure is if we know that a person is our conflictor, or our dual or whichever. But we know what they are, even if it's not labeled. What Socionics does is providing us with the knowledge to name it, as a conscious process.

So you're saying that you can automatically and intuitively get the feel of a person, and that would be an accurate assessment of a person.

That would be true up to a point, but that would also be wrong, since intuition is mostly based on observation (or worse, how one "feels" about another), and not everything can be understood in terms of observation alone. For example, scanning a brain by an fMRI machine is much more accurate than any amount "intuition" that you can offer (so is a careful logical and objective analysis). Basically, a lot of things that have been discovered are NOT actually based on intuition or "common sense". A lot of the newly discovered things go AGAINST "intuition" or common sense that people held for many years, even thousands of years, until they've been turned over by new discoveries.

I'm not saying that "intuition" doesn't have any merit, intuition can be very effective at quickly assessing and making snap judgements of a person, and it can turn out to be correct a lot of the time. For example, it could be very effective at detecting that somebody is lying, which when done by an ordinary computer, it would take A LOT more time, maybe perhaps next to impossible at this point. But this intuition can also be wrong, making all sorts of errors and biases (cognitive biases), and that would be its downfall. And since theories are more concerned with accuracy than speed, seriously relying on "intuition" is nothing short of ridiculous.

That's why science has discovered that people have broadly two modes of thinking: The System 1 thinking, which is fast and intuitive, and System 2 thinking, which is slow, deliberate and logical. In order to maintain its accuracy, you would need slow, deliberate and careful analysis.

You might say "Well Socionics also has careful analysis!" - but then its entire theory relies on these "intuitive" typings.

[Bertrand]

assuming the person is trying to do what the fMRI does and nothing more or less then yes a fMRI is better at being a fMRI, but generally intuition is directed at different goals and obtains categorically different information, which the fMRI cannot accomplish, let alone do better. if you assume they're trying to do exactly the same thing the fMRI is by definition better at being a fMRI

[Singu]

assuming the person is trying to do what the fMRI does and nothing more or less then yes a fMRI is better at being a fMRI, but generally intuition is directed at different goals and obtains categorically different information, which the fMRI cannot accomplish, let alone do better. if you assume they're trying to do exactly the same thing the fMRI is by definition better at being a fMRI

Like I said, "intuition" is actually incredibly complex. Ironically, in order to understand how intuition works, we would need to first understand how our mind works, which could potentially be accomplished by brain-scanning technologies such as fMRI.

So relying on "intuition", actually turns out to be more complex, which violates the Occam's razor. It would be better to tackle simpler problems, BEFORE making more complications.

[Bertrand]

are you saying to compare the real utility of using intuition we first need to understand it comprehensively, which can only be accomplished via tools and methods such as the fMRI, so we should work under the presumption that intuition has less utility than fMRI because you believe fMRIs and similar technology have at least within them the potential to conclusively determine the truth of everything (and if not everything, at least intuition itself as a product-of-brains), whereas we know at the very least intuition does not, and should therefore be of a lower priority?

because it comes down to essentially begging the question of the innate superiority of science and technology, and also that intuition can be captured by purely quantitative scientific measures. which is precisely the point at issue, which is that there's a qualitative difference between intuition and what amounts to a form of sensing, which is concrete qualitative measurements. in essence it presupposes a materialist worldview in order to reach its conclusion

the counter point would just be that your longing for objective and concrete solutions to everything is a form of compensation for an abstract and subjective existence, which seems to me to be just as salient a point as like some image on a page produced by a machine

[Singu]

It's like this. Can you make a theory on how to spot liars, by gathering a bunch of people who are good at detecting liars? Maybe up to a certain point, and you can make some general statements on how to spot them. But eventually, it will end up with things like "It just feels to me that this person is lying", which the process cannot be explained. As an "intuition", this process can only be used by the person who is using it and it cannot be "transfered" to another, until an objective explanation that explains how it exactly works is found. So this theory only "proves" that there are certain people who are good at detecting liars. Until an objective explanation is found.

It's not wrong per se, but you can't make a theory out of it, and that is basically what Socionics is doing.

[Bertrand]

ok, your entire premise is this set up where I'm imagining some SLE confidence-man saying he can spot a liar based on outer signs he attributes significance to, but without going into verifying the underlying statements and events purported to constitute the actual lie. kind of like when k4m "types" people, hes like "trust me bro we don't need to verify that statement x contradicts event y because I can totally tell by the look on his face whatever he's saying isn't true." your point that SLE is full of shit and there's no underlying knowledge, except that this guy has learned to recognize signs that accompany general falsehoods but tell us nothing about what actually happened, is true. this is what I call cargo culting a system

but that's not what socionics is doing

you might say that socionics is creating a scheme of relations fundamentally built on proxies for something more fundamental, but it becomes a debate over what is itself fundamental. this is where you battle over the legitimacy of phenomenology itself, versus rationalism. this is the philosophical domain of ontology. this debate goes a lot deeper than internet debate, so its sort of futile to try and meaningfully engage in it. this is actually where the internet gains its reputation for having a kind of shallow atheistic materialistic bent to it precisely because the medium itself favors that outcome

[Pallas]

In Socionics, "typing" is thought of to be some kind of a mysterious process, something that is arrived via an "intuitive feeling" of a person that they're typing, as it were, which has no clear explanation of its processes. You could say that it's a kind of a pattern-recognition process, comparing someone with many people that you have recognized in the past that you have stored in your brain database.

Which can be fine, if this "typing" done by individuals are thought of to be some kind of a diagnosis, a kind of a pre-screening process before taking more "objective" measurements via tests. Just like how medical doctors quickly diagnose patients and look for symptoms before they advise the patients into taking medical tests.

But no such objective "tests" exist in Socionics (which, btw, MBTI has "solved" this problem via tests, but the problem is that you may get different results every time you take the test). And even if there were such tests, no tests can have 100% accuracy, so there are going to be some false reports. And if you're going to "test" this via ITR, then it's going to be a circularity as the ITR itself would require an explanation for why it works the way it does.

Nonetheless, "typings" done by individuals are nothing more than subjective opinions of the typist which has no objective explanation, i.e. an explanation of how one arrived at that conclusion that can be explained in a rational and an objective manner. Which means that individual Socionics typings have no relation with reality whatsovever. It is nonsensical.

Everything is intuitive though. Logic just arrives at whatever you want it to. You have to have something unprovable to prove anything else. If you don't use intuition, you can just reverse engineer the unprovable statements to prove whatever you decided you'd like to prove.

Also, I thought typist was like racist but with types, not someone who types someone else.

[Pallas]

As an "intuition", this process can only be used by the person who is using it and it cannot be "transfered" to another, until an objective explanation that explains how it exactly works is found.

Yes it can. This is how people learn how to do things, instead of just talk about theoretical ideas. How do you speak a language, play an instrument, ride a bike, or whatever?

[Bertrand]

not to mention what is an "objective" explanation. I think he means inter subjective. an objective explanation would be like "you can't not believe x once it is relayed to you" which is like precisely what makes people human is they can believe whatever they want and no one can force them to believe anything. man would go insane just to gain that point

[Pallas]

not to mention what is an "objective" explanation. I think he means inter subjective. an objective explanation would be like "you can't not believe x once it is relayed to you" which is like precisely what makes people human is they can believe whatever they want and no one can force them to believe anything. man would go insane just to gain that point

Well, objective knowledge is experiential. I can think of some things that'd count as objective explanations and force people to believe things, but they're not what he'd consider an objective explanation. Like "the sky is blue." OK, now you know what color the sky is, and since there's nothing else to say about the color of the sky, you're forced to believe it. What'd probably be more obviously applicable would be that striped dress that people argued over ages ago. If someone says what color it is before someone else sees it, that'll change how people perceive it, so that'd be an "objective explanation." "Forcing" happens at this cutoff point.

[Bertrand]

its context dependent, when you say the sky is blue what do you even mean. its not objective, you could say stuff like that and it would have zero effect on the right person

even 2+2=4 is meaningless to a cave man, you could explain it to him but he might just cut you off and eat your liver. and we know how popular 2+2=5 is

you could say yeah but with enough time I could convince anyone, but taking the time itself constitutes a tacit agreement to agree. i.e.: trust

you could say ok, but all reasonable people would agree to, that is what makes it objective. but its just culturally relative definition of reasonable at that point

[Pallas]

its context dependent, when you say the sky is blue what do you even mean. its not objective, you could say stuff like that and it would have zero effect on the right person

even 2+2=4 is meaningless to a cave man, you could explain it to him but he might just cut you off and eat your liver. and we know how popular 2+2=5 is

you could say yeah but with enough time I could convince anyone, but taking the time itself constitutes a tacit agreement to agree. i.e.: trust

you could say ok, but all reasonable people would agree to, that is what makes it objective. but its just culturally relative definition of reasonable at that point

It has nothing to do with "reason" or "reasonableness." It's basically the opposite of reason. If someone believes something just because you told them it and there's no way to backtrack, that seems like forcing someone to believe something to me. And, there has to be something that you can't backtrack. Let's say you're one of those people who wants to say that you don't see blue, you see photons or whatever. Well, then how do you prove photons?

[Sol]

Sol typed me as "I,T most possibly SLI" in my fake account video typing thread (Rei) while on this one (just based on a post) he said in good broken english "emotional, to the degree of thinkless" cause I cussed him out lmao.

@Rei

If you behaved as I said.
Only if I'd typed you with _assurance_ to other type by other material - there are some reasons for your hysterics. If you behaved closer to common for F type, - you could be assumed such, certainly. Without link to the message it's impossibly to check what was indeed. Anyway, as your psyche is pathologic you are not a significant case.
Also I may change opinions about types in some % of cases, as most typers. For example, for my bloggers list I may say 90% as average assurance.
While you again have shown yourself here as "emotional, to the degree of thinkless". This may to be not only from your type but other psyche issues.

You may to be T type and you are still unsure in other, you still agree with my opinion about introversion, and with my assumption about P. You did not rejected neither my sure opinion nor the main assumption given to you by the typing material which I recommended. You may to be SLI and to accept this later, but I was sure only in 2 traits.
You are unreasonable and ungrateful. One of bad things when giving the psyche help - a lot of inadequate people.

> He even typed me on his own quadra but I'm sure as hell we don't get along.

I did not, as did not said SLI with assurance. Also based on what you know your opinion is rather baseless. And there are also non-types factors which make the problems for your relations.

> Got you niggah whuz gud?!

Lie as the additional argument for your psychopathy - yes.

> I guess until there's some sort of brain scanning to determine the areas of the brain that are most active in a person and this can be proven to be related to specific cognitive functions, typing remains mostly obscure.

Most probably, typing with good accuracy may be done by behavioral methods, like by nonverbal and IR. As it works good with my skills, for example. Besides people, AI and computer analysis may use this sometimes with high accuracy.

> the type itself still can't be proven

There are no objective reasons to think that some today methods and typers skills have no high accuracy and what can't be _objectively_ proved.
It's possibly to objectively proof the practical efficiency of a typing method. This would be the analogue of a "proven type" with _some probability_.

> For now everything is subject to interpretation

Yes, until Socionics theory and practice will not get objective proof. As in anything else.

You said nothing new and made several baseless and hence useless assertions. Also have shown the lack of adequacy in moral and thinking regions. I hope your mind will become better one day, for the good for you and people near you.

bye, crazy girl

[Singu]

Well, I guess the IQ level here is pretty low.

The hypothesis of Socionics is basically: "Do types exist?". And Socionics says yes, and the evidence is "typings via intuition (not in the Socionics sense of the word)". But then this requires the explanation of how that intuitive typing works, which we can't explain for now, so it is unknown. The reality of the situation is, "We don't know if they exist or not, how people work is pretty complicated, and we don't understand it fully yet". But Socionics adds an extra baggage to that reality with "unexplainable intuition".

Following the Occam's razor, we should follow the simplest explanation that explains what it purports to explain, and yet do not add any more complications.

It's just like how "conspiracy theories", instead of explaining one thing, it adds more complications by adding even more unexplained things ("Flat Earth theory and the NASA conspiracies"). So taking these things seriously, it becomes reality + baggage.

And what is not in this reality, must be false things.