The problem of typing

[tcaudilllg]

For me, it seems impossible to be certain of a person's type when they themselves are uncertain of it. If they put forward the suggestion that they may be one type or another, then I can affirm that, but if they themselves are uncertain then the typing can only be tenuous.

Political type theory is so much easier. A person's projections betray their nature right from the get-go.

[Absurd]

That means ?

[somavision]

I think I understand your meaning.

If someone has the necessary self knowledge to act in an authentic manner then they would in turn have the necessary self awareness to be able to choose their type correctly?

I think that there are occasions where this would be a useful mantra. However an with a lack of self awareness or curiousity in self could convince themselves that they are a type that they are not, so in this sense I disagree.

[Absurd]

I think I understand your meaning.

What does it have to do with politics ?

[krieger]

Self-typings are the only thing worth a damn in socionics. People should stop trying to "type" people and instead help people find their type. The amount of information people have available about themselves so far outclasses the amount a random external observer has that the latter can never override the former.

[Creepy-bg]

Self-typings are the only thing worth a damn in socionics. People should stop trying to "type" people and instead help people find their type. The amount of information people have available about themselves so far outclasses the amount a random external observer has that the latter can never override the former.

[Gilly]

Self-typings are the only thing worth a damn in socionics. People should stop trying to "type" people and instead help people find their type. The amount of information people have available about themselves so far outclasses the amount a random external observer has that the latter can never override the former.

[Not A Communist Shill]

It has been shown to be the case with studies that individuals are better able to determine their personality type consistently than "professionals" can.

[Azeroffs]

Self-typings are the only thing worth a damn in socionics. People should stop trying to "type" people and instead help people find their type. The amount of information people have available about themselves so far outclasses the amount a random external observer has that the latter can never override the former.

Especially online. How can anyone come to any kind of certainty about a type of someone they haven't met? You can't see their mannerisms or how they interact. You can't hear their tones of voice. All you have is some hallow shell of communication (text), and you really think you can come to some kind of definite typing? I agree with tcaud that all you can really go by is what the person gives you, which if they don't know themselves very well becomes a problem. I don't understand these fights where people are trying to convince others of a typing which they are completely opposed to. Who are you to say you know someone better than they know themselves over the internet? Jesus people.

[Gilly]

It has been shown to be the case with studies that individuals are better able to determine their personality type consistently than "professionals" can.

sauce please?

[Wynch]

Self-typings are the only thing worth a damn in socionics. People should stop trying to "type" people and instead help people find their type. The amount of information people have available about themselves so far outclasses the amount a random external observer has that the latter can never override the former.

Especially online. How can anyone come to any kind of certainty about a type of someone they haven't met? You can't see their mannerisms or how they interact. You can't hear their tones of voice. All you have is some hallow shell of communication (text), and you really think you can come to some kind of definite typing? I agree with tcaud that all you can really go by is what the person gives you, which if they don't know themselves very well becomes a problem. I don't understand these fights where people are trying to convince others of a typing which they are completely opposed to. Who are you to say you know someone better than they know themselves over the internet? Jesus people.

I completely agree with both of these comments. I think the only time to question someone's self-typing comes when they demonstrate a lack of understanding of socionics, not because of a lack of understanding about themselves. This is why I generally stay away from typing people and stick to discussing theory. It probably more helpful to people to flip through threads discussing theory than it is having a thread where 20 people argue about their type.

[Gilly]

I completely agree with both of these comments. I think the only time to question someone's self-typing comes when they demonstrate a lack of understanding of socionics, not because of a lack of understanding about themselves.

What about me? :wink:

[Not A Communist Shill]

sauce please?

[...]People's scores are really rather stable over long periods of time. In one study, people took a personality questionnaire on three occasions six years apart. The final scores (twelve years on from the beginning of ths study) correlated with the initial ones with r values of 0.68-0.85. This is extremely high. In fact, it is pretty much the same r value you get if people take the test twice with a time interval of six days. It shows that variation due to quirks is quite limited, and that once you take this into account, the underlying scores are as constant over a decade as they are over a week. People's scores when rating themselves correlate quite well with how others close to them see them, as long as those others know them reasonably well. When strangers rate a target person's personality, there is essentially no consensus between them, but the better they know the target, the greater the consensus. Correlation between ratings from the targets themselves and ratings from those that know them well are typically around 0.5⁹.

9. Stability of ratings over time: the longitudinal study is Costa, McCrae, and Arenberg 1980. See also McCrae and Costa 2003. On consensus between raters, see Kenrick and Funder 1988.

Costa, P. T. and McCrae, R. R. (1980). Influence of extraversion and neuroticism on subjective well-being: Happy and unhappy people. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38: 668-78.
Kendrick, D. T. and Funder, D. C. (1988) Profiting from controversy: Lessions from the person-situation debate. American Psychologist, 43: 23-34.
McCrae, R. R. and Costa, P. T. (2003) Personality in Adulthood: A Five-Factor Theory Perspective, 2nd edn. (New York: Guildford Press).

.