The Typing Process

[InvisibleJim]

I don't have the time to map out the process I find best today and maybe not for the next two weeks because I'll be invading Villahermosa and Houston, but it would be useful for the community if people want to have a discussion.

There is value in understanding and sharing the approach to concluding type and the several useful methods that could be applied.

[fen]

[InvisibleJim]

[fen]

Then a coin for subtype. Heads = contact; Tails = inert.

[InvisibleJim]

Then a coin for subtype. Heads = contact; Tails = inert.

Now we are getting somewhere! Check this out as an alternative typing process:



I propose we label the first the first method d16+d2 and the second d32.

[fen]

I feel like d32 would just roll around and it wouldn't be clear what it landed on. I think d16+d2 would be better.

[krieger]

typings are self-preceeding prophecies. it's not the definitions and models of the types that engender the typings but vice versa.

[Creepy-pikachu]

typings are self-preceeding prophecies. it's not the definitions and models of the types that engender the typings but vice versa.

Amen

[Beautiful sky]

Is this thread making fun of me?

[InvisibleJim]

Is this thread making fun of me?

Nope.

[Creepy-Snaps]

My left pointer is on F, and my right pointer is on J.

asdF Jkl;

That is my typing process.

[Absurd]

Yes,
Yes,
Yes.

[mfckr]

@InvisibleJim, there’s been a thread on this before—my last revision from a couple years ago is here: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...l=1#post689498

[Gilly]

@InvisibleJim, there’s been a thread on this before—my last revision from a couple years ago is here: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...l=1#post689498

I really like Thompson's description of Se. It's the most accurate, most experientially resonant first-person description of Se I've ever seen.

[InvisibleJim]

Typing via. Model A

I frame the objective as typing via. Model A first. This stresses the importance of first identifying the combination of PoLR and which the 'unaware' functions the individual uses in the ego block almost automatically.

One can observe the individual under stress to identify PoLR and must engage in routine congenial conversation to work out their normal ego routine.

There is another check and balance to this in that Te users in their ego are much more concise in communication than Ti egos. In the case of those with Te super-ids they defer to Te ego users but when required deliver conciseness but forget the Ti details. This is similar in Ti ego/super-ids - observe the Ti splurges with no common framework or empiricism.

I also tend to consider extroversion vs. introversion more a matter of individual choice as opposed to a cognitive certainty.

1) Observe normal mode of conversation
2) Observe conversation under stress
3) Confirm with thinking orientation, simply because I think it's a very clear indicator
4) Allow individual to choose extra/intro version.

On correlation models e.g. Renin/Quadras

I avoid typing with correlation based models, namely quadras or renin dichotomies. Although there are some good reasons why these models have been mapped out, they are still independent models. Model A is defined by assuming archetypal responses to a much more detailed problem of the individuals.

When you take two models and multiply them together you generate confusion. When there is a correlation without causation you don't really reduce the risk; this only happens when both 'risked' inputs relate to a derivative outcome independently.

@Gilly

[Gilly]

Cleanup on aisle Jim, he got a little excited

[InvisibleJim]

Like you're actually going to do it

Cleanup on aisle Jim, he got a little excited

As requested.

Anticipate a flowchart post haste.

[717495]

There is another check and balance to this in that Te users in their ego are much more concise in communication than Ti egos. In the case of those with Te super-ids they defer to Te ego users but when required deliver conciseness but forget the Ti details. This is similar in Ti ego/super-ids - observe the Ti splurges with no common framework or empiricism.

I usually notice / valuing concision and / valuing exposition, ime. Or, in other words, assumed presence/descriptive quality (/) vs descriptive presence/assumed quality (/).

This is why / language tends to read more context-removed, or qualitated upon the given context (Se in physical object, Ni in abstraction) and it's difficult for / to trigger as much relevance or realism from it that is already assumed by /, as it's geared towards deriving involvement and enhancing reality. Similarly / language involves context and extra descriptors to more easily sequence reality as a model (Si in physical description, Ne in abstraction) that proves to be a challenge for / types to mentally qualitate, a quality already assumed and questioned by /.

[InvisibleJim]

Chers Messieurs et Madames

I usually notice / valuing concision and / valuing exposition, ime. Or, in other words, descriptive quality vs assumed quality.

This is why / language tends to read more context-independent (Se in physical object, Ni in abstraction) and it's difficult for / to trigger as much relevance or realism from it. Similarly / language involves context and extra descriptors to more easily sequence reality (Si in physical description, Ne in abstraction) that proves to be a challenge to mentally qualitate for / types.

Perhaps this is a function of my own failure; I can't really envision ideas which I have little or no relation to and need to be gradually walked through each of the elements make them up before I can attempt to utilize them effectively. This doesn't stop me inventing ideas and playing with those inventions, merely in attempting to explain them to others. Therefore I find a lot of dealing with Ne difficult; it doesn't sit easily with me when I'm asked questions that I can't define or when I'm asked to express ideas or views that I have been unable to properly map out.

[Gilly]

As requested.

Anticipate a flowchart post haste.

You haven't done anything useful, this is clearly just some bullshit you conjured up in order to meet my challenge. All you've done is told us what you think is important, without any kind of practical explication of how you go about typing. Its completely useless, because all you are doing is describing your actions, or the very general things you do, and not the actual process of what's going on in your head and how you are attributing different aspects of what you are observing to types.

Oh and lol @ you dismissing the idea of quadras, the concept that is at the heart of Model A's formulation and is basically the one unique redeeming attribute of Socionics over MBTI and whatnot. Go back to your old forum; old dogs don't learn new tricks very convincingly.

[Korpsy Knievel]

Hahaha!

[ArchonAlarion]

I feel similarly Jim, although I don't believe it is contrary to Ne/Si. Your post seem more like Ti complaints against Te, then rational complaints against irrationality in general. All Ti/Ne does is define and map. Ne is indigestible without some sort of framework or explanation. Maybe you meant something else or I misunderstood.

[fen]

There is another check and balance to this in that Te users in their ego are much more concise in communication than Ti egos. In the case of those with Te super-ids they defer to Te ego users but when required deliver conciseness but forget the Ti details. This is similar in Ti ego/super-ids - observe the Ti splurges with no common framework or empiricism.

I think this explains my frustration with Ti well. It's too vague. Which thing goes where. Please actually explain this instead of leaving it super open-ended like you expect me to magically read your mind. Pronouns are my enemies. Cooking with my ILE friend is literally one of the most stressful things. I might as well just let him cook cause if I cook he will criticize what I'm doing, but then not clearly explain what I need to do instead. GAH. He always asserts he knows the right way to do things, but I don't trust him because he doesn't even explain his reasoning behind things..just proposes them as truths, when I'd actually like to know what's behind why he thinks certain things. Mister, I know how to cook Tuna Helper. No, it doesn't need to cook longer. I followed the cooking time, and even went over like a minute. Why don't you actually bite one of the noodles to test if it's done instead of just assuming it isn't done. It's gonna turn to mush if I cook it more. HFKGAJLGAajlvha

Most of this is probably not type related. Just needed to rant.

But yeah. Everyone types differently. I often wonder how deluded we all are. We type very heavily based on stereotypes, as evidenced by @gnarlycharlie 's experiment, and I'm sure other experiments too. I wonder what The Russians think of our broken Socionics. I wonder how far off the mark we've veered, though I kinda doubt there's even a mark at all....since it's all theory about something intangible anyway.

[Ryan]

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...-VI-him-please

[InvisibleJim]

Dummy Spit Out

Sigh, no need to cry foul and wave your penis about like a child trying to spoil the parents grown up party: you got what you asked for and what I said I would give: man up.

If you are going to make claims you should stop the invention: there was Model A by Augusta. Everything else is correlation which offers a high level glimpse at the underlying theory but does not provide conclusive information regarding the more detailed theory. It is not 'central' to it.

This is some pretty fundamental stuff here, but you have of late indicated support for the 'my little pony' correlation branch of socionics.

[Gilly]

Sigh, no need to cry foul and wave your penis about like a child trying to spoil the parents grown up party: you got what you asked for and what I said I would give: man up.

If you are going to make claims you should stop the invention: there was Model A by Augusta. Everything else is correlation which offers a high level glimpse at the underlying theory but does not provide conclusive information regarding the more detailed theory. It is not 'central' to it.

This is some pretty fundamental stuff here, but you have of late indicated support for the 'my little pony' correlation branch of socionics.

That's cute, calling me the child when you're the one making penis jokes and not addressing anything I say. When you would like to have a productive discussion and are finished using this forum as a medium to reinforce your ego against your own insecurities, let me know.

[Korpsy Knievel]

'my little pony' correlation branch of socionics.

Although mostly-Merry bronyism was drawn from observation of forum members' reactions it was only presented as a casual correlation, not a causal one. It was also mentioned with the explicit caveat of being stereotypical, i.e. to be taken with a measured dash of salt. But thanks for another example of your signature style of poor reading comprehension and as-if hokum.

My references are Model A as described at wikisocion, socionics.us, whatever translated articles wind up here, and whichever Eurasian sites I visit such as Gulenko's. Psychological Types sits at the ready atop my PC's case and the Campbell-edited Portable Jung is also nearby (though presently on loan to a friend). A few of Jung's other written works are also on hand though I've yet to consult them in depth. Getting to know Jung better through Gerhard Wehr's biography of the man shed a great deal of light onto the etiology of his worldview and creative works.

I regard socionics as an idiomatic lexicon akin to musicology in that it describes and notates events without being tantamount to them. It provides a means for contextualization, thought, and discussion of phenomenality, but it shouldn't be reified. A properly descriptive and predictive typology must root itself in neurology, not rationalist conjectures based on an inheritance of medieval alchemy, theosophic atomism, and 19th century parlor games. Modern psychology has its own faults, but there are good reasons why MBTI, socionics, enneagram, and the like aren't used in that field except among quacks and New Agers.

Method: an analysand's overall behavior is integrated into a gestalt and examined across multiple axes for correspondences with Model A, IEs, blocked functions, JCFs, intertype, quadra values, small clubs, dimensionality, aspectonics, etc. Gulenko's cognitive styles are interesting and have received a bit more attention from me recently, especially after reading this http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...s-by-V-Gulenko article. Analysands are also compared and contrasted with other persons whose types I've decided upon with fair confidence. That entails a circularity of argument, which I've pointed out before, but in such a situation it does have some pragmatic value even if it's epistemically unsatisfying. Individuals of some types arrest my attention more quickly than others, though this also places me on guard to double-check the reasons for arriving at their initially-suspected typings. Some types have few living exemplars known by me and so they're harder to spot due to unfamiliarity. Some are rather jarring, especially if they're blasting Si and Fe all over the place, or if they're shitting overly-idealized irreality everywhere with Ji. Those who instantiate one or two particular types strike me as "normal dudes" and so they tend to catch my attention later than most, and only after realizing that they hadn't caught my attention at all.

The more remote extrapolations of Reinin's dichotomies (i.e. those above the lower orders) tend to be written poorly, they're force-fitted to a model such that symmetry is prioritized over likeness to life, and they're frequently unobservable in a clear manner. I use them selectively and without much emphasis. EM-type is another poor attempt at wringing greater explicatory/predictive power from what is really just a pseudoscientific heuristic, so I don't use DCNH or dual-type. Subtypes are also of little use these days though I keep meaning to spend more time with inert-contact/vertical subtypes.

Given the mess MBTI has made of JCFs and the idiotic manner in which it ordered introverts' functions, not to mention the lingering confusion it frequently engenders in its practitioners who later adopt socionics, I am pleased to have spent almost zero time with that typology before taking up this one.

Enneagram and instinct variants considered in conjunction with socionics can produce a useful means of catalyzing insights into both systems' theories and application, and also into the mentalities of persons under examination. Combined use of these two typologies is also recommended in pursuit of a consilient concordance of evidence, producing a more complete, robust, and veridical image.

Kind of boring to repeat and reiterate all this once again. Cha cha cha, socionics.

[Beautiful sky]

Sigh, no need to cry foul and wave your penis about like a child trying to spoil the parents grown up party: you got what you asked for and what I said I would give: man up.

Jim, I have a very interesting question that I hope will help you utilize your method; in observing the above about Gilly what conclusions can you draw from it about him as it is type related?

[Scapegrace]

 

[thePirate]

I think this explains my frustration with Ti well. It's too vague. Which thing goes where. Please actually explain this instead of leaving it super open-ended like you expect me to magically read your mind. Pronouns are my enemies. Cooking with my ILE friend is literally one of the most stressful things. I might as well just let him cook cause if I cook he will criticize what I'm doing, but then not clearly explain what I need to do instead. GAH. He always asserts he knows the right way to do things, but I don't trust him because he doesn't even explain his reasoning behind things..just proposes them as truths, when I'd actually like to know what's behind why he thinks certain things.

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...Dmitry-Golihov

2, the function (Don Quixote, Zhukov) - likes long, detailed and creatively explain anything other than a teacher, a teacher, "I explain, while I listen, while 100% will not be sure that everyone understood everything." Asked him - sometimes you can hear an answer for hours, sometimes just looking for someone to speak out on "their understanding of something," "get away" from this it can be difficult, if not talk about it directly. Something similar could be the object and logic functions on two sometimes, but in this case the emphasis is not on facts but on the fact that all necessarily understand everything, sometimes explained as the children for this reason. This person is constantly looking for an audience with questions, but not explained in terms of knowledge, but from the standpoint of how he understands it, that is more lucidly and meticulously. He likes to find a field of application is something that has not been studied and understood before, sometimes like to begin to explore the unknown for a sphere in which they have no qualifications, as it allows us to develop the scope of "understanding" of anything that is very tempting for creative functions.

...

[Radio]

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...Dmitry-Golihov

2, the function (Don Quixote, Zhukov) - likes long, detailed and creatively explain anything other than a teacher, a teacher, "I explain, while I listen, while 100% will not be sure that everyone understood everything." Asked him - sometimes you can hear an answer for hours, sometimes just looking for someone to speak out on "their understanding of something," "get away" from this it can be difficult, if not talk about it directly. Something similar could be the object and logic functions on two sometimes, but in this case the emphasis is not on facts but on the fact that all necessarily understand everything, sometimes explained as the children for this reason. This person is constantly looking for an audience with questions, but not explained in terms of knowledge, but from the standpoint of how he understands it, that is more lucidly and meticulously. He likes to find a field of application is something that has not been studied and understood before, sometimes like to begin to explore the unknown for a sphere in which they have no qualifications, as it allows us to develop the scope of "understanding" of anything that is very tempting for creative functions.

...

People define types, not the other way around.
If you're going to interpret types as literally as this, you might as well allow 16 people on the planet to exist.

[thePirate]

People define types, not the other way around.
If you're going to interpret types as literally as this, you might as well allow 16 people on the planet to exist.

My point is that what she's describing completely contradicts it's description as an IE. Whether or not her friend explains anything to her is arbitrary, it's not an issue that should be pinned to Ti.

[Creepy-pikachu]

People define types, not the other way around.
If you're going to interpret types as literally as this, you might as well allow 16 people on the planet to exist.

I dunno -- there are only so many ways in which to refract light, but there are many ways in which light comes to be refracted.

[InvisibleJim]

Jim, I have a very interesting question that I hope will help you utilize your method; in observing the above about Gilly what conclusions can you draw from it about him as it is type related?

I would consider it to be Ne PoLR, Im expressing an alternative way of valuing ideas. Its in the nature of LSI and ESI to react with aggression to alternate paradigms; they will frame it as people refusing to answer their points, but how do you show anyone how to think down an alternate route, especially one which they view as ending with a pit of vipers?

This is squared with the usual conundrum that the preset Ne position has been generated elsewhere as the individual has little use of the function.

What everyone else lives with is that ideas have varying merit:
Se/Si PoLR doesnt engage when a solution lacks elegance or sentimental value.
Ti/Te PoLR either goes on a highly logical tirade in case of Te without reference to others views or empirical evidence whereas Ti PoLR tends to throw hands in the air and refuses to engage, Ti PoLR is often viewed as a lack of willpower.
Ni PoLR doesnt see any value in comparing the likeness between ideas, often viewing this as a nasty trick.
Fe PoLR reacts against social force and refuses to comply with external ethics.
Fi PoLR doesnt see any need to self regulate through ethixs and will happily take opportunity where it is found.

Of course these are very extreme examples.

[ashlesha]

gilly is ne polr?

[InvisibleJim]

@lungs I like the paper 'The point of least resistance' as published by Prokofeina and Kuzima at the socionics institute; its quite useful as a reference and is a convenient tie to 'Russian Socionics'. I have always viewed Gilly as LSI and this would fit that approximation.

This doesnt agree with others viewpoints or his own but I guess that is my problem rather than theirs.

A secondary comment that should have been in my above post to @maritsa is that one needs a sufficient body of evidence to have a clear typing, this is of course a function of the comfort level of the individual, but I dont think its really wise to type based upon a single data point.

[Beautiful sky]

I would consider it to be Ne PoLR, Im expressing an alternative way of valuing ideas. Its in the nature of LSI and ESI to react with aggression to alternate paradigms; they will frame it as people refusing to answer their points, but how do you show anyone how to think down an alternate route, especially one which they view as ending with a pit of vipers?

Fe PoLR reacts against social force and refuses to comply with external ethics.

I'll steer you in the right direction.

Also, that Fe PoLR reacts (key word REACTS) in an infantile manner, "like a child" (man child - do you recall where that comes from?); inability to express emotions so the reactions are like a child who can't say "I feel bad mommy."

What you call Ne polr is actually an extraverted sensitivity; the barrier goes up when the person has a self made concept and reacts to things that don't fit that concept hence reactions are emotions (introversion); it's like someone who thinks one way and goes around the room looking for that same thing to say "YES" to.

Fe PoLR is not refusing to comply with external ethics; it's more being very sensitive to them, but not valuing them.


So about Ne polr; just because it's Ne PoLR doesn't mean the person is not interested in ideas and alternative patterns, but that the person has a real blind spot in this area periodically; the PoLR function can mimic DS often because the person "needs help in this area." To you, it seems as though he's not accepting your help but what he's really doing is not accepting it in the WAY in which you deliver it. Deliver it with certain degree of sensitivity to his Feelings and you'll see how differently he reacts.

[InvisibleJim]

I'll steer you in the right direction.

Also, that Fe PoLR reacts (key word REACTS) in an infantile manner, "like a child" (man child - do you recall where that comes from?); inability to express emotions so the reactions are like a child who can't say "I feel bad mommy."

What you call Ne polr is actually an extraverted sensitivity; the barrier goes up when the person has a self made concept and reacts to things that don't fit that concept hence reactions are emotions (introversion); it's like someone who thinks one way and goes around the room looking for that same thing to say "YES" to.

Apologies Maritsa but according to the article this would be Fi PoLR aka ILE/ISE (reviewing the table) is this what you intend to attribute here?

Of course this now has little impact on myself because the initial emotional disruption has passed (good old Fe PoLR to the rescue).

Okay, perhaps I quoted you too quickly. Since I understand the emotions that other people experience so poorly it is always useful to have your viewpoint on these issues Maritsa.

[Gilly]

Oh my god

LOL

[fen]

@thePirate
If you are going to block me on tinychat so that you don't have to interact with me, it's probably best you don't interact with me here either. Make a decision.
I know you are so highly convinced I am SEI, but I'm not a dynamic type. I'm extremely static. And I'm not Fe valuing. If you have an issue with my self-typing, that's fine, but you've beaten it to a pulp and I've considered SEI, but decided it isn't the best typing for me. I don't constantly go out of my way to try to convince you that you aren't SEE. So at least return the favor, please. At this point it's really a matter of live and let live. You can maintain your opinion of my typing, but at this point you're just beating a dead horse. So, best to accept that I and most others disagree, and move on. Your efforts will accomplish nothing.
Also, I talked to @Ashton about it and he verified that he had similar experiences with Ti egos.