typing by jungian D's

[Pa3s]

Hey, I just wanted to know how often you actually find the right type of a person by simply checking the four jungian Dichotomies I/E, S/N, F/T and j/p. Think of some people you know and where you're very confident that you've typed them right. Imagine you just thought about this as a reference. I ask because this is typically the first typing attempt people use who are new to socionics and know nothing about it. It would be cool if you could answer with a rough percentage like 80% typed right. Not that I want to use it in a statistic, but it would be easier to compare. Thanks.

[golden]

Hey, I just wanted to know how often you actually find the right type of a person by simply checking the four jungian Dichotomies I/E, S/N, F/T and j/p. Think of some people you know and where you're very confident that you've typed them right. Imagine you just thought about this as a reference. I ask because this is typically the first typing attempt people use who are new to socionics and know nothing about it. It would be cool if you could answer with a rough percentage like 80% typed right. Not that I want to use it in a statistic, but it would be easier to compare. Thanks.

Not being very experienced with typing, and coming more from MBTI, I still check these dichotomies, but it's only through slow exposure to socionics that I find them at all useful.

So far, in my newbie-ish fashion, I can use the jungian dichotomies to narrow things down a little, and I ask myself about them first, but I could never settle on a type by doing that. It's a first question for me, but then I do better with looking for what IEs I observe in the person, ego block stuff. Also, just trying to figure out if they value Se/Si, Fe/Fi, Te/Ti, Ni/Ne. Getting a sense of their possible quadra. And how does the person make me feel? Then maybe going back to the jungian dichotomies to see if a better picture emerges.

Like just now, I was briefly observing a guy in my old community in California whom I've been aware of for years. Flashy, real-estate agent, getting out of his BMW, always working, working, working. Seems to be mildly extraverted, in more than one meaning of the term. Seems to be steady, always in the same mode, possibly rational. Too heavy in demeanor to be alpha. Doesn't vibe Beta to me. That leaves me with Gamma and Delta. I know enough about him to think he's into Fi>Fe. He's interesting but I feel pushed away from him, not drawn toward ... Et cetera.

Probably EJ.

But to narrow it all down, I'd have to get closer to the guy (don't wanna) and be willing to decide he's not EJ Gamma or Delta.

[Computer Loser]

probably around 70%. i try to keep it simple and it usually works out for me.

[Pa3s]

Not being very experienced with typing, and coming more from MBTI, I still check these dichotomies, but it's only through slow exposure to socionics that I find them at all useful.

Hmm, thant's interesting. I expected it to be exactly the other way around. Because there is not so much to take into account if you try to find and MBTI type in my opinion, I thought it would be quite common to just check these four things and you've got the type. You know, there are no quadras or 'real' intertype relations, just the temperaments maybe.

You pretty much described the way you would type someone, your algorithm. Just imagine you would use this 4-dichotomy-way on the people you're confident that you know what socionics type they have. Would you still be right?

[Aiss]

Socionics redefine dichotomies in comparison to MBTI.

So while initially they may lose their usefulness and be better forgotten, as you start understanding socionics, it gives them new meaning. Especially introversion and rationality, and especially as temperaments, are very useful. In comparison to MBTI, N/S and T/F are much harder to figure out - it's usually better to look at values or the person's overall internal/external or abstract/involved tendencies (even though those are IE dichotomies).

But thinking of it, I must admit I don't use dichotomies on their own now, though they may stand out in some cases and be a part of the broader reasoning. If I use four-letter code, it's usually because it's the simplest way to express something.

[golden]

Hmm, thant's interesting. I expected it to be exactly the other way around. Because there is not so much to take into account if you try to find and MBTI type in my opinion, I thought it would be quite common to just check these four things and you've got the type. You know, there are no quadras or 'real' intertype relations, just the temperaments maybe.

You pretty much described the way you would type someone, your algorithm. Just imagine you would use this 4-dichotomy-way on the people you're confident that you know what socionics type they have. Would you still be right?

Well, once I'm confident of their socionics type, the 4-dichotomy picture may not be any clearer. In MBTI I can recognize maybe they would test differently.

Take a probable SLE I spent months trying to type. He thinks in MBTI he must be ESFX. And maybe he is--in MBTI. He doesn't think of himself as intellectual enough to be a T type; this is a problem with his conception of T versus F, and/or the MBTI presentation of it, and also his own inability to see himself as others see him. And he has no clue at all if he's J or P.

I observe him and see highs, lows, all the time--a very inconsistent pattern of life and energy both in the larger sense over years and within the course of a day, an hour. Is he going to be relaxed, hard-working, checked-out, checked-in at any given moment? Cannot predict. And he's highly adaptive to changes big and small. Irrational.

But looking at it socionically, he's not an ethical type, imo. He doesn't interact with people on that level. He deals with them using interpersonal force and argumentation. He feels strong emotion internally. But if you were to meet him, you would not see it. You would see someone who is confrontational, pressureful, charming when he wants something, inappropriately funny, stubborn, and sometimes blunt, dry, pessimistic, and harsh. And despite all that, a pretty nice person. He strives, that is, to be nice.

Sitting down with him and going through the information elements, as at Rick's site, he can easily say he absolutely values Se>Si, Fe>Fi, Ti>Te, and then somewhat Ni>Ne--that last one's not as clear-cut. He leads with Se. He doesn't follow up with Fi. He doesn't seem to have Ni PoLR. Hold him up against the SLE order of elements and it makes a lot of sense. Throw out the stock descriptions of SLE as an all-powerful being and understand that SLE can be quite self-doubting and things make more sense still.

So, back to your question, it's hard for him to get beyond ESFX in MBTI, and it's hard for me to go beyond seeing him as ESXP in MBTI. I would say it's very, very hard to type him in that system and that it doesn't necessarily hold true to say he's SLE and ESTP. Imo, SLE delivers much more information than ESTP, so the socionics type obviates the MBTI questions.

[Galen]

Assuming you actually know what you're looking for and how to find it, the Jungian dichotomies aren't actually all that bad. The problems occur when people distort or skew what those dichotomies actually attempt to define. Examples of this would be things like "introverts get drained around people" and "extroverts love to talk to lots of people" etc. Thinking back to people I know personally, I can definitely find good correlations between how they fit on the jungian dichotomies and their valued functions.

[EyeSeeCold]

No need for dichotomies if you can pinpoint functions.

[717495]

The question tends to be, which dichotomies do you fit the most? It's understandable that if someone always tests ie. INTP every time on tests, and they have no qualms about being INTP they should identify with that type fairly easily. If however, they test INTP, sometimes INTJ, sometimes ENTP, and its clear they have strong NT dichotomies, then it would be surprizing if they were anything else but NT.

This can also be said of functions, in a more intuitive sense. Different flavors of examples out there, but my personal example is I've always identified with the notion that I'm dominant N, with an F HA, which virtually leaves two types, and which one can only fit since introversion is always my strongest dichotomy. So the idea is like trying to fit a couple puzzle pieces in place.

I would still find it weird that a type did not identify with all four of their dichotomies, just so long as the dichotomies are defined correctly in terms of that personality type.

[Aleksei]

Hey, I just wanted to know how often you actually find the right type of a person by simply checking the four jungian Dichotomies I/E, S/N, F/T and j/p.

I don't even bother. Jungian dichotomies put me up as ENFp.

I am not a fucking Delta.

[Park]

@MegaDoomer: LOL @ your signature.

Why "greater than" 40 degrees, though?

[limNol]

Once you know someone's socionics type, all the dichotomies suddenly fall into place. But if you're trying to type someone based on dichotomies, things can get confusing very quickly because someone can seem like an "E" or a "P" at one time and an "I" or a "J" at another. Sometimes people's behavior will be really clear-cut, but for the most part Jungian dichotomies really are more situational and less constant than functions when it comes to actually deducing someone's type, which is why a lot of MBTI tests represent them as "spectrums."

[Galen]

No need for dichotomies if you can pinpoint functions.

But the functions are dichotomies!

[EyeSeeCold]

But the functions are dichotomies!

Ye of little faith. The difference is perspective. I don't go for X or Y, becuase then you'd just be trying to confirm a bias. I look for the most consistent IM aspects and see if they form a type.

[Pa3s]

Okay, so typing only according to these four dichotomies is not very popular among the people here. I remember it's the only way we typed anyone in an MBTI forum I was active in a longer time ago.

@MegaDoomer: LOL @ your signature.

Why "greater than" 40 degrees, though?

Thanks. Well, this is the mistake I included on purpose to see how long it'll take until a forum member points it out. Well done, you've won an internet cookie! (or maybe I was just mixing up the symbols?)

[Aiss]

I would still find it weird that a type did not identify with all four of their dichotomies, just so long as the dichotomies are defined correctly in terms of that personality type.

So would I. I can see how socionically typed people wouldn't fit "their" MBTI dichotomies (where for example J is defined more like Ej and P more like Ip, and yet a bit different from either), but within socionics it still works.

[717495]

People don't identify with their type even when they know what their type is. Ie. lots of people don't identify with aliens.

[Park]

(or maybe I was just mixing up the symbols?)

I should know? And it's "carefully", not "carfully". But maybe you did that on purpose.

[squark]

I should know? And it's "carefully", not "carfully".

His sig actually reads "less than" 40 degrees. When you asked why it read "greater than" I guess he thought he had made a mistake?

[Words]

I should know? And it's "carefully", not "carfully". But maybe you did that on purpose.

Why does it matter? His sig is funny enough.

[The Exception]

I primarily use functions when sociotyping and don't think of jungian dichotomies that much.

[Aleksei]

We all do. Jungian dichotomies are a shit way of typing, in either Jungian system.

[Pa3s]

I should know? And it's "carefully", not "carfully". But maybe you did that on purpose.

Another cookie. Don't get fat.

His sig actually reads "less than" 40 degrees. When you asked why it read "greater than" I guess he thought he had made a mistake?

Nah, I have fixed it after he said it. He was right, it showed the wrong symbol.

I would still find it weird that a type did not identify with all four of their dichotomies, just so long as the dichotomies are defined correctly in terms of that personality type.

Yes, that's right. It would be kind of weird, because it's somehow the basis the type is made of.

We all do. Jungian dichotomies are a shit way of typing, in either Jungian system.

I wouldn't say that. This typing method appears to be very shallow, but I guess the results are often quite close the the actual type of the person.

Are these four dichotomies more important or more essential than the reinin ones?

------
@ Ashton: interesting find!

[golden]

Yes, that's right. It would be kind of weird, because it's somehow the basis the type is made of.

Well, I can see it. Sorry for the endlessly long posts in this context, but, yeah.

Suppose you have a male Beta irrational deep in the throes of living out his Ti needs, maybe an E4 with a 5 wing ... I could see that person concluding maybe he was T versus F.

Suppose you have an SLE who is internally roiling with feelings that he doesn't fully understand. That individual could say he's an F.

And the problem with those dichotomies is building a whole type from them when it's really easy for someone to be close to the middle in any or all of them. And there's not an adequate blueprint for them to clarify things.

Even when you get deeper into MBTI, it's still too much like static portraits (for me) than the dynamic systems that information metabolism describes.

[Park]

His sig actually reads "less than" 40 degrees. When you asked why it read "greater than" I guess he thought he had made a mistake?

Read his reply above.

Why does it matter?

I didn't say that it matters, I just pointed out the mistake. As to "why" it matters, I guess you'll have to answer that question to yourself.

[Park]

Another cookie. Don't get fat.

I couldn't, even if I wanted to. I am thin as a toothpick, no matter how much or what I eat.

Thanks for the cookie. My favorite kind is chocolate chip. (Just so you know what to give me from now on. :wink

[Pa3s]

I couldn't, even if I wanted to. I am thin as a toothpick, no matter how much or what I eat.

Thanks for the cookie. My favorite kind is chocolate chip. (Just so you know what to give me from now on. :wink

Just like me... well I don't plan giving you any more. :wink:

@aixelsyd: Yeah, they are sometimes hard to identify... but taking so many dichotomies and small groups into account can be very misleading as well imho.

[Park]

You've commented on his sig twice.

Yes, nice observation. Want a cookie?

It doesn't matter to me.

I should care?

Sigh what is it with people like you that dodge simple questions. Guess I'm asking the wrong guy for a straightforward answer.

It's usually hard to give a straightforward answer to a stupid question.

[Words]

Yes, nice observation.



I should care?



Guess it's hard to give straightforward answers to stupid questions.

That's what I mean. Defensive and argue over dumb stuff.

[Aiss]

Just like me... well I don't plan giving you any more. :wink:

In this case you better add this space between "..." and "better" before he scores points for it.

[Park]

That's what I mean.

I don't know what you mean, but I suspect you expect me to "get" something you didn't say.

Defensive and argue over dumb stuff.

We don't have to argue. Instead, we could agree that you make incorrect assumptions, ask stupid questions, and say very dumb things.

[Park]

In this case you better add this space between "..." and "better" before he scores points for it.

Shhhh, I want my cookies.

[Pa3s]

In this case you better add this space between "..." and "better" before he scores points for it.

This space you proposed is not necessary in the given case.

[Park]

This space you proposed is not necessary in the given case.

True.

[Words]

I don't know what you mean, but I suspect you expect me to "get" something you didn't say.



We don't have to argue. Instead, we could agree that you make incorrect assumptions, ask stupid questions, and say very dumb things.

OK I'll bite cause maybe I'm missing something. You pointed out he'd mis-spelled careful. I noticed this before but didn't see it worthwhile enough to post about it. It mattered enough to you to make a post about it. I asked you why it mattered. You replied by saying it didn't matter to you, yet it mattered to you enough to post on it. You then told me I'm asking a dumb question. I don't get why you can't just tell me why it mattered enough to comment on his spelling. And his sig twice. OK maybe it's a dumb question but I wanted to know why. So why?

[Pa3s]

How do you mean, exactly? Just for clarification. Thanks.

Don't misunderstand me, I quote you, but this was not necessarily only referring to your post. I just wanted to say that a lot of people here think it can be very misleading and shallow if you just use the four jungian dichotomies for typing. But if you actually use everything which is said about a type, (the other method, except a mix of both) you can easily find some truth in both (or more) types you've shortlisted. Or, as polikujm said, how can someone truly be a type without relating to the basic jungian Dichotomies? So the best way would be to fully understand what the dichtomies actually mean and be guided by stereotypes or false assumptions (like Fe = gregariousness).

So why?

He got his second cookie this way...

[Aiss]

This space you proposed is not necessary in the given case.

True.

You got me searching for this... the rules seem really vague in English, though most of the googled results insist on space after ellipsis when it's followed by a word. Is there any established standard for it?

[Pa3s]

Is there any established standard for it?

Hey, I had typography in school, I did layouts and stuff. Don't you argue with me!!! No seriously, I don't care. You can be right. However, I just think it looks stupid if you got "word ... word". It's a matter of taste.

[glam]

i think when typing someone, i can usually identify a couple of Jungian dichotomies correctly.

and of course you can type using them - it doesn't make sense to say that you can't, as they are determined by the IM element ordering, which *is* the type. if you know how to identify them, you can use them to help identify type.

now the Jungian dichotomies are not as useful when determining something such as intertype relationships, because those are a result of the interaction between two people's particular functions. i.e., looking at the Jungian dichotomies alone, will not tell you why LII is Beneficiary to IEI, why SEE and SLI is a relationship of Illusion, etc.

Are these four dichotomies more important or more essential than the reinin ones?

you might be able to get an answer from this: http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?t...pe_dichotomies

[Aiss]

Hey, I had typography in school, I did layouts and stuff. Don't you argue with me!!! No seriously, I don't care. You can be right. However, I just think it looks stupid if you got "word ... word". It's a matter of taste.

I prefer "word... word" if it's indicative of a pause, reflection or whatever meaning you want to add by using it, and "word ... word" if it's an actual ellipsis (omission), although I'm more used to "word (...) word" in this case.

So what typographical rules for English did they teach you?