How confident are you in your ability to type people accurately?

[Raver]

I find my ability and confidence in typing people accurately is dependent on several factors. One of which is the amount of time spent with them, what kind of person they are and my own personal whims. I've noticed that as time has gone by since I've discovered Socionics my confidence in how accurately I've typed people has diminished greatly. It's not that I think my ability to type them has weakened, but more that I've realized over time how an inexact of a science (if you want to call it one) Socionics really is and how it's subject to personal biases and beliefs that can corrupt it heavily and render it completely useless as a system in determining people's personalities.

I've had numerous occasions when I realized I inaccurately typed someone based on arbitrary deductions derived from mere assumptions as opposed to objectively noticing character traits that link an individual to a specific personality type. I'm not sure if I'm being overly skeptical or merely becoming more aware of the shortcomings of Socionics. I do realize though that some individuals are more acute and aware to typing people accurately without being overly confident as a result of their extensive knowledge and experience in Socionics. So I ask you how confident are you in your ability to type people accurately?

[Raver]

Good question. I typed out my answer to this in another thread: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...e-your-type(s)

Thanks, I've been away for a while and I didn't know that thread was made.

[strangeling]

I use what I know about people to paint a mental canvas that I can free with my imagination. Sometimes that canvas has patterns that frame a lot of their behavior; these patterns can be given meanings, such as a typing in order to give face to something I know about them. But I don't use the type as the canvas and I don't replace the patterns with a type (the patterns become axiomatic to the individual typing), which would be to forget who they are. The relations become contingent upon the culminating circumstances of these different clashing frames of people's personalities, frames that may become painted over at a later date and frames that will not overshadow the rest of the painting, frames allowing other aspects of the painting to allow people to feel, dream, or relate differently in terms of relations, emotions, and associations. Typing can help me remember these things and play with them by symbols or labels. But I do also realize that my paintings of people will not have to match others, something I think I appreciate because it makes people interesting to get to know, and then the question of whether what I paint can be more truthful than what someone else paints comes to mind; but I see my free will as a manifestation of its own truth in this case and one that deserves the distinction because it is free.

So how confident am I in my ability to type people accurately? I don't know, damn it. I'm not sure what you want me to say, I really don't. And I don't think many will understand what I'm saying and that bothers me more than not being able to answer you.

[Saberstorm]

I find my ability and confidence in typing people accurately is dependent on several factors. One of which is the amount of time spent with them, what kind of person they are and my own personal whims. I've noticed that as time has gone by since I've discovered Socionics my confidence in how accurately I've typed people has diminished greatly. It's not that I think my ability to type them has weakened, but more that I've realized over time how an inexact of a science (if you want to call it one) Socionics really is and how it's subject to personal biases and beliefs that can corrupt it heavily and render it completely useless as a system in determining people's personalities.

I've had numerous occasions when I realized I inaccurately typed someone based on arbitrary deductions derived from mere assumptions as opposed to objectively noticing character traits that link an individual to a specific personality type. I'm not sure if I'm being overly skeptical or merely becoming more aware of the shortcomings of Socionics. I do realize though that some individuals are more acute and aware to typing people accurately without being overly confident as a result of their extensive knowledge and experience in Socionics. So I ask you how confident are you in your ability to type people accurately?

I can type people with confidence as long as I am typing people whose jobs are complex enough to see their program function, provided I have emails to interpret, provided I have observed them for a few months in a working environment, provided I can see them interact with people they do not know well so I can see their role function, and as long as I can sense their quarta.

Also, I look at their friends. They should not have a lot of friends in their opposing quarta and so on.

I look for static/dynamc and asking/declaring of Reinin and pretty much nothing else from him. (except for quarta values.)

If you can filter through these multiple correlated threads of evidence, you should do fine. Can a Ti PoLR do this?

[ashlesha]

i am the most accurate typer in my whole world

[Beautiful sky]

Pretty damn good at it

[Galen]

I pick up on certain traits pretty easily, which vary depending on the individual. For one person Se/Ni valuing stands out more than anything else, while another will be very obviously irrational without much hint for anything else. Plenty of times an entire type will come to mind when I first meet someone off the bat, and plenty of times those knee-jerk typings change once I get to know the person better.

[Raver]

I pick up on certain traits pretty easily, which vary depending on the individual. For one person Se/Ni valuing stands out more than anything else, while another will be very obviously irrational without much hint for anything else. Plenty of times an entire type will come to mind when I first meet someone off the bat, and plenty of times those knee-jerk typings change once I get to know the person better.

I can relate to this a lot from my experience. I get knee jerk typings and then change my notion of that individual's type once I learn more about them. Leading me to question my ability to type people.

[FDG]

I'm very confident, but typing people is in many ways an exercise in futility since if socionics exists, your relationship with them is going to develop according to what's "supposed" to be.

[Raver]

I can type people with confidence as long as I am typing people whose jobs are complex enough to see their program function, provided I have emails to interpret, provided I have observed them for a few months in a working environment, provided I can see them interact with people they do not know well so I can see their role function, and as long as I can sense their quarta.

Also, I look at their friends. They should not have a lot of friends in their opposing quarta and so on.

I look for static/dynamc and asking/declaring of Reinin and pretty much nothing else from him. (except for quarta values.)

If you can filter through these multiple correlated threads of evidence, you should do fine. Can a Ti PoLR do this?

I think a Ti PoLR is more likely to ignore those dichotomies completely and rely on other methods on typing people. Such methods could be comparing strangers to individuals they've known for a long time and noticing specific character traits that belong to a certain personality type. A Ti PoLR is more likely to take a more holistic approach as opposed to a logical one at least from my own experience.

[mikemex]

I type intuitively most of the time and usually my first guess is correct.

[Aquagraph]

I don't know how to measure this accuracy.

[ashlesha]

Other: accurate is not really a good word to use in typology.

it makes me really happy when people get it

[HandiAce]

Not confident. I can type by vibe sometimes and it's less stressful that way