What are the best type descriptions, in your opinion?
i like:
- Gulenko's type profiles (w/alterations by Ganin): http://www.socionics.com/prof/prof.htm
- Lyubov Beskova's male & female portraits: http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?t...e_descriptions
- Igor Weisband's type descriptions: http://socioniko.net/en/1.1.types/index.html
- Meged & Ovcharov's dual pair descriptions: http://socioniko.net/en/1.3.rels/dual.html
i prefer the portrait/profile style descriptions to the functional breakdown ones (such as Stratievskaya's and Wikisocion's)
yeah, functional breakdown is strange. It doesn't provide the broad picture.Originally Posted by glamourama
IMO Filatova's are the most comprehensive and theoretically sound. Gulenko and Weisband's are interesting as a sort of trivia or personal perspective on the types, but they have a lot of weird idiosyncrasies and VI bullshit too (SEIs "often have short legs"???).
I've always had trouble with type descriptions because it's just so easy to pick them apart and point out cases where somebody of a certain type doesn't have a specific written characteristic. Saying "XXXx is like" is a lot like saying "Christians are like," because the things that hold together people who self-affiliate with Christianity are relatively few. There are different groups and subgroups of people who hold different, even opposing, specific beliefs from one another, yet still all call themselves Christians. As such, what matters is knowing a combination of two things: what is actually relevant to a specific group that all people of that group share indivisibly, and what is simply a secondary attribute that permeates throughout several different groups under different contexts. The same applies to any given socionics type. Where I get frustrated with type descriptions is that so many of them focus on specific secondary, or even tertiary, characteristics of a type that what actually defines the type is completely lost under a sea of superfluous and often times inaccurate details. This also includes descriptions of temperaments, IEs, etc etc.
At first I hated these kinds of descriptions, but I've spent some time slowly reading a shitload of them at http://www.socionic.ru/index.php and find that if I don't get too hung up on any one idea or any one description, a picture (even though incomplete) emerges. It's more like reading them makes me ask, "What kind of person would all these descriptions point to? What is the underlying theme?"
Also, as I start to have a better understanding of the IEs, I read the descriptions and can identify what parts of them seem to be linked to which IEs, and question in what other ways they might manifest.
LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”
Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”
LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”
Typology is pretty much the systematic study of stereotypical traits in humans. While it is true that a person will likely not identify wholly with any type descriptions and he may identify with aspects of many different type descriptions, the point is to provide a context to the theory through generalizations and recurring characteristics. That is, to show what a manifestation of each type stereotypically looks like. They are resources in the process of determining one's type, but ends to determining type themselves.
=====
I like Filatova's descriptions as well. They appear to be the most comprehensive and most accurate. I also really liked the article you put up of dual relations.
I like all of these:
http://translate.googleusercontent.c...fsmqF2m8j84Znw
These are voted upon with stars(they have a webpage like this for each type)
Yep, exactly. That's how descriptions should be read, imho.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Meged & Ovcharov's description of ILE is kinda stupid, focused on behavior - looks like a mix between ILE and casual LIE (while the LIE description looks focused on business). MBTI style. From the LIE description, LOL:
Only when the LIE grows older does he start to wear a suit and the like.
For fuck's sake NO.
These are pretty good, but a lot of them are bad translations and difficult to understand.
These are OK.
Those are pretty good.
Stan is not my real name.
You're a good man.
They IMO fit pretty well with other descriptions, assuming one ignores the visual parts and some specifics.
To help subjects of casual typings validate my analyses I once made use of Ganin's profiles (they're brief and largely free from jargon, and thus digestible by the uninitiated or barely-interested), but always with the caveat that the first two or three paragraphs should be ignored. Eventually I dropped those in favor of his +/- profiles before abandoning the site entirely.
Socioniko.net
-
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
The ones you find in real life.
Easy Day
More than anything else, I like finding obvious human benchmarks of the types, and using that pool of people as a living, breathing type description
p . . . a . . . n . . . d . . . o . . . r . . . a
trad metalz | (more coming)
The problem with benchmarking is that not everything a person does is type related. A person's personality is a combination of type and life experience, as well as other factors, I'm sure.
More than anything else, I like finding obvious human benchmarks of the types, and using that pool of people as a living, breathing type description
they're pretty good imo. they're easy to read and present lucid descriptions of the typical behaviors of the types - behaviors that can be explained with Model A if you know it.
those profiles are essentially Gulenko descriptions with some modifications by Ganin (it says this on the profile pages) and i've compared a few of them before to verify. are people dismissing the validity of these descriptions because they are posted on Ganin's site? or because they get hung up on things like "Male ISTjs often wear a moustache"?
That problem would be more pronounced in smaller (especially one-person) pools - I know it's not a technically perfect method, but it's a workable, relatable, and concrete one, and as the pool of benchmarks grows, it might be the most complete one out of all the available options...
I try to look far and wide, across age differences, money differences, professions, their relations to me, surface personality differences, all sorts of things - as of now, Alton Brown, Mountain Dew, a cousin of mine, and a manager at my workplace make up a good part of my mental image of an ESE, and as I find and know more for almost certain, they'll be made a part of the pool too (Seth Rogen and Alex Lifeson are standing on deck right now - I haven't fully thrown them in the waters quite yet)...
They totally do!they're pretty good imo. they're easy to read and present lucid descriptions of the typical behaviors of the types - behaviors that can be explained with Model A if you know it.
those profiles are essentially Gulenko descriptions with some modifications by Ganin (it says this on the profile pages) and i've compared a few of them before to verify. are people dismissing the validity of these descriptions because they are posted on Ganin's site? or because they get hung up on things like "Male ISTjs often wear a moustache"?
p . . . a . . . n . . . d . . . o . . . r . . . a
trad metalz | (more coming)
Yeah, and that's 2/3 of the description. There's usually about 1 or 2 paragraphs I like in the middle of each description that isn't about clothes, physiognmy(sp?), or rife with overly vague statements.
I still use the +/- profiles for that, if anything. Also, his relationship pages are quite good.
Stan is not my real name.
For sure, but I think it's important to use benchmarks with theoretical descriptions so that the traits being assigned to type stay relevant.
This might just be because of my approach. I don't heavily ascribe to subtypes and just look at difference between types as mostly non-socionic variation. When I look at a real person, their type isn't always the most prominent thing, so it's not accurate to say "SEEs are like her" for example because there are so many things that she would be that aren't relevant to the SEE type.
Granted, working examples are useful for describing things that aren't easily described in words, and a lot of what I believe to be relevant to type I can only describe as a general "vibe."
anyway, I'm rambling.
@OP
I really like the Stratievskaya descriptions that I can understand
socionics.org has some good descriptions too. I use google chrome to translate.
The stock type descriptions only seem helpful to me as an adjunct to actually observing people over time and recognizing patterns.
LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”
Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”
LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”
I like type descriptions as a way to get an overall feel for a type, or like a big picture of it or something, but they shouldn't be used as a list of traits or as a recipe of what it means to be some particular type.
The ones I dislike most give physical descriptors. No, one type does not have its own style nose, and different types don't have different heights.
Last edited by Slacker; 06-05-2011 at 08:50 PM.
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.-Mark Twain
You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.
Still, you need a theoretical base before you can start using the sample exclusively. I prefer to stick with descriptions as my benchmark since I'm not confident in typing people I don't know personally and can't confidently build a very large sample size. I may reference other people's typings that I see as having merit, but I always take them with a grain of salt and just don't have a high enough level of confidence in them.
Double guns to Slacker, woofwoofl, and Golden.
Your favorite set of type descriptions?
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
Ahhh...so this is where you found out that I am a forgiving person!!!
I AM!
These are wonderful descriptions; I've booked marked them for future reference. Thank you.
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Agreed, the LII type description is pretty coherent with how I view myself. Moreover, they're concise and then expand, so you can read it in short bursts and the information is well sorted, rather than reading pages of text with a lot of information.
And yes, I know that you were looking for other good type descriptions, but yours just beat my traditional source - the Filatova's descriptions on Wikisocion.
Warm Regards,
Clowns & Entropy
These type descriptions are awesome. I've yet to find one that is so thorough that it describes the type when its undergoing certain states. The description fits me to a T, while also fitting the type in general. I also like the Reinin descriptions (I'll find a link later). Not because they are great descriptions but because they give an aspect to Ni that is usually overlooked.
Yup, once again one of them fits me.
Filatova. This is one of my favorite sets of profiles. Simple, easy to understand, relatively stereotype free. There are a few passages that are useful for typing. I've noticed some bias in favor of delta, however (her own type is EII).
Beskova. A flattering set of profiles that is appealing on a personal level, but too riddled with all the usual misleading stereotypes such as "SEE can't math b/c Ti-PoLR". Appropriate as an introductory set only. Her profiles for her 'supervisees' were amusing when she suggested striptease as potential occupation for them.
Gulenko. I liked his descriptions primarily because he tries to derive type traits directly from his theoretical work on Model A. As such his profiles have the highest concentration of type-specific traits and the least amount of superfluous attribution. One a personal level they are a bit too dry and strenuous to read (and translate) due to being so dense in content.
Stratievskaya. Another one of my favorites. I find her profiles to be accurate for the most part. However, unlike Gulenko, she tends to attribute virtually everything to socionics sometimes to the point of absurdity. She also goes too much into describing particulars and specific situations, such that I get the impression that one needs a lot of Ni to connect it all together and derive meaning from these disparate scenarios. I think her intertype relationships articles are more elucidating of type distinctive traits than her type profiles.
Ganin. His socionics.com website is where most of people land when they start researching socionics. I remember there was a lot of debate on MBTI forums about his profiles for similar types, particularly quasi-identicals where it was suggested that he had switched the profiles around. His profiles are concise and easy to understand for beginners, but they provide a very general outline of types by which it's impossible to type accurately. After the intro stage I've never paid attention to them again.
Another author that I like that I haven't seen translations anywhere is Elena Zamanskaya. I think her observations of types are particularly insightful, but I've found only incomplete sets online: http://www.sociotype.ru/
Grrrrr, once I settled for SLI you have to praise Filatovas profiles what made me of course curious and according to her profiles I am so LSE and so not SLI what leaves me puzzled again
But from an objective perspective it's an awesome review
Edit: I'd be interested what the others sociotype is if you know.
Last edited by DaftPunk; 12-20-2013 at 02:53 AM.
I don't have a favorite set of type descriptions. They are all fun to read and provide a different perspective. The best descriptions come from observing the types for yourself and learning to notice type related themes in both epic events and everyday life. Those descriptions are my favorite. It's my opinion that one doesn't really understand Socionics until he has some idea of where all those descriptions came from.
Gulenko's
I was reading Best Socionics website descriptions and they seem good , in both Socionics and Psyche Yoga
Unfortunately, they don't have descriptions of LxE and LII
( open the page in desktop mode if you are on the phone )
The problem with the descriptions is that most of them cover behaviors rather than cognition, so they won't apply to everyone , Gulenko's descriptions for example
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
