Typing accuracy

[krieger]

What do you think is a maintainable accuracy level for typing in the following situations?

- a quick glimpse of a person, barely able to register their facial and bodily features

- 2 minutes of obseravation of the person at a distance

- seeing the person for long periods of time (on television or in your surrounding world) but not having interacted

- having interacted with the person for under 2 minutes

- spending several weeks around the person with frequent instances of interaction

- having heard the person's voice on telephone only

- having the person described to you in words only

Answer the question in terms of how many dichotomies you identify, or how many types you are undecided between.

[Gilly]

I can accurately type most people in under 2 minutes of interaction usually; if it takes more than that, it will likely take a significant amount of interaction and observation to determine more accurately. Sometimes I can type someone just by seeing their face once. Some people I've known for years and I'm still not certain about their type. Just depends on the person, really.

[717495]

I can chose a typing for someone, and play on it a bit, but most of the time never come to a sure conclusion until I've really gotten to know the person and seen them interact in various environments. I don't think typing on hunches or interests, or things they have in common with me or others is accurate enough. It has to be based on the IMs and the larger picture, because I can easily get stuck in the details just like a lot of people here, you know, seeing insignificant surface details and trying to fit them into a category because they look like someone else.

[DirectorAbbie]

- spending several weeks around the person with frequent instances of interaction

This and a few backup questions for double-checking is the method I have used to type over a hundred people. All but a few totally agreed with what I typed them as. The few exceptions are still enigmas because I don't know them well.

[Suz]

- spending several weeks around the person with frequent instances of interaction

This and a few backup questions for double-checking is the method I have used to type over a hundred people. All but a few totally agreed with what I typed them as. The few exceptions are still enigmas because I don't know them well.

Which questions do you ask?

[DirectorAbbie]

Which questions do you ask?

Dichotomy questions. I have a list of the original eight for people I don't know well. I can usually quickly determine thinking/feeling and extrovert/introvert. "Do you think of things from lots of different angles?" is a good question for determining static vs. dynamic. It's usually a question of two or three types that are plausible. Most recently, I've been able to hand a person I've known for a while a description of the type I think they are and have them say, "Yes; this is me." With only sixteen types to choose from, it's pretty easy to type someone in person.

[Jarno]

- a quick glimpse of a person, barely able to register their facial and bodily features.
1%

- 2 minutes of obseravation of the person at a distance
3%

- seeing the person for long periods of time (on television or in your surrounding world) but not having interacted
80%

- having interacted with the person for under 2 minutes
20%

- spending several weeks around the person with frequent instances of interaction
90%

- having heard the person's voice on telephone only
5%

- having the person described to you in words only
35%


% of times when I can say with certainty which type the person is.

[Jarno]

It seems many people don't seem bothered by how reliable some typing situations are to them. That might explain why they aren't bothered with accuracy in general.

[Gilly]

Some people are better at typing under different circumstances. For example I'm better at typing someone before I get to know them; once I have an opinion of my own of the person beyond an initial vibe, sometimes I'm "too close" to the situation to really type accurately.

[yeves]

having heard the person's voice on telephone only

is this hearing the tone of their voice only or having one phone conversation with the person?

[Amber]

What do you think is a maintainable accuracy level for typing in the following situations?

- a quick glimpse of a person, barely able to register their facial and bodily features
30% (at least as far as I'm concerned, not bad at snapshots)

- 2 minutes of observation of the person at a distance
30-40% (if they're doing something/talking and that gives me extra material to draw upon)

- seeing the person for long periods of time (on television or in your surrounding world) but not having interacted
50-75%

- having interacted with the person for under 2 minutes
< 50 %

- spending several weeks around the person with frequent instances of interaction
80-100%

- having heard the person's voice on telephone only
15-30 % (T vs F can be easy to tell apart, also Fi vs Fe and Te vs Ti if you get into details ...provided that the conversation had some substantial content and I didn't hear only formulaic stuff + their voice modulations for max.3 min.)

- having the person described to you in words only
I don't give much credit to second-hand descriptions, they can be contaminated by unavoidable bias ... it's like I have 2 or more brain filters to chew on and solve ... but let's say about 20-40%

Answer the question in terms of how many dichotomies you identify, or how many types you are undecided between.