I love this forum already

[Sandoval]

You have some of the best material and articles I've seen on type.
I feel like I should have spent the last four years on this site, instead of elsewhere.


A little about me... I've been pursuing an objective means to quantify type for the past four years or so, and my journey has taken me through a lot of error-checking and diverse hypothesis.

My approach has been one of using body language -- but not in the loosely defined way people typically implement. The goal was to see if the similarities we see in people and subconsciously use to say things like "yep, that's definitely a Beta" could be quantified and correlated to the actual functions and actual, dynamic expressions (rather than face structure)

As I did this, starting in the MBTI camp, I discovered myself coming to a very similar general alignment with Socionics. And as Socionics seems to have an appreciation for visual identification, I hope I can fit in~

It's a pleasure to meet you

[Beautiful sky]

Welcome. And your type?

[Sandoval]

TiNe

[Sol]

You have some of the best material and articles I've seen on type.

Many of them are badly translated articles. And all here is just hypotheses, which may be wrong. Some hypotheses are not even normal socionics like baseless Reinin's dichotomies, subtypes and other bs.
Also there is a problem of doubtful practice, as all have typing matches <50%, average <20%.

My approach has been one of using body language

Types have specific expression in nonverbal behavior. You may notice the difference in my types examples.

dynamic expressions (rather than face structure)

"face structure" is just old heresy known as physiognomy. You may meet followers of this in socionics, unfortunally. As they also use behavioral theory - it keeps them in touch with reality.

As I did this, starting in the MBTI camp, I discovered myself coming to a very similar general alignment with Socionics. And as Socionics seems to have an appreciation for visual identification, I hope I can fit in

Normal typing is IRL interview when you see the man. So you get there nonverbal info. As socionics accepts intuition as one of ways of knowledge, even equal to logics, - so "impressions" always were important in typing. One of things which gives us impressions is nonverbal behavior of the typed. You could meet in descriptions of types and dichotomies the "impressions" from people of some type. MBT should have this factor too as they use interview, not only the test, but probably they prefer to keep this way for typing as "hiden", as looking not too "scientific".
I did comparative typing on socioforum with using nonverbal method - were typed bloggers with their random videos. Many typers have gotten match near 20%, what is much higher than 6% of random, and this was statistically correct (<5% mistake). This have proven nonverbal methods have objective basis, despite are mostly based on intuition.

[sushi]

welcome i like the posts you made about BETAS and the pictures you used. do you have anymore like that?

[Eliza Thomason]

I think the articles here are excellent, too. You can learn so much. Did you see Forms of Cognition, @Sandoval? Yes, some of them are bad translations and you just have to stumble through. Most of them are readable though. Personally, I have found Reinin Dichtonomies to be consistently useful in typing/understanding people. They seem to always work with the Socionics type, in my own use of it. I have had trouble with identifying subtypes though, not just with others but also for myself and those I know well. I don't know if that's the system's fault or my own.

[mu4]

Hello and welcome.

[Sandoval]

Normal typing is IRL interview when you see the man. So you get there nonverbal info. As socionics accepts intuition as one of ways of knowledge, even equal to logics, - so "impressions" always were important in typing. One of things which gives us impressions is nonverbal behavior of the typed. You could meet in descriptions of types and dichotomies the "impressions" from people of some type. MBT should have this factor too as they use interview, not only the test, but probably they prefer to keep this way for typing as "hidden", as looking not too "scientific".

Yes, precisely. We all use these impressions, and everything about a person, to determine type -- but some models don't accept it.
But I think there's a good point to their concern, since a very impressionistic approach to visual identification is also incomplete. The vagueness (20% accuracy is still low-ish) could use a lot of research and maybe bring it to a more 'academic' place. It might make more consistent predictions by using a more defined method.

I think the articles here are excellent, too. You can learn so much. Did you see Forms of Cognition, @Sandoval? Yes, some of them are bad translations and you just have to stumble through. Most of them are readable though.

I'll definitely take a look.
Hey, are there any plans for the (Polish?) Socionics community to officially publish English translations of their books and articles? I'd love to get some paperbacks.

welcome i like the posts you made about BETAS and the pictures you used. do you have anymore like that?

I do. I'm glad they were well received! I can do a few more of you'd like.
I'm curious to see how our impressions correlate.

[Sol]

We all use these impressions, and everything about a person, to determine type -- but some models don't accept it.

Not models, as MBT has intuition function too.

The vagueness (20% accuracy is still low-ish

20% is typers' match, not accuracy. It's close to the match gotten in typing with IRL interview in experiment CRT-99 (there was average 17% match based on its raw data, while original article had wrong calculating and said % higher). It's also not less to what was gottern in experiments with using photos+questionnaire on socioforum. So it's not "low-ish" it's "typical-ish" for Socionics today.
The match is possibly to get higher if typers will be not random people from a forum which partly use bs like Reinin's dichotomies.

to a more 'academic' place

The only way to bring more academism is to bring more objectivism while this needs experiments which proove you typed people well. And high practical matches, but not today <50% between any two typers. Anything other is same doubtful speculations which we have now.

[wacey]

hey whats up welcome to the16t

[blank]

[Sandoval]

D: aackk, Barney!

I was blissfully forgetful of that dinostrosity's existence for years......

Look what you've done...

[blank]

D: aackk, Barney!

I was blissfully forgetful of that dinostrosity's existence for years......

Look what you've done...

Good. Git trigguhed.

[sushi]

I do. I'm glad they were well received! I can do a few more of you'd like.
I'm curious to see how our impressions correlate.

please post more ^_^ did you create the images you used?

[Sandoval]

please post more ^_^ did you create the images you used?

I did, with the help of my closest friend. ^^

I could post more, but I don't want to overstep my (so kind) welcome... as these ideas come from a new and different model than Socionics... and I don't wanna start an uproar. I will pm you with it instead.

[nondescript]

I did, with the help of my closest friend. ^^

I could post more, but I don't want to overstep my (so kind) welcome... as these ideas come from a new and different model than Socionics... and I don't wanna start an uproar. I will pm you with it instead.

Welcome here.

You are also quite welcome by the way. Let's see these word twists.

[nondescript]

Many of them are badly translated articles. And all here is just hypotheses, which may be wrong. Some hypotheses are not even normal socionics like baseless Reinin's dichotomies, subtypes and other bs.
Also there is a problem of doubtful practice, as all have typing matches <50%, average <20%.



Types have specific expression in nonverbal behavior. You may notice the difference in my types examples.



"face structure" is just old heresy known as physiognomy. You may meet followers of this in socionics, unfortunally. As they also use behavioral theory - it keeps them in touch with reality.



Normal typing is IRL interview when you see the man. So you get there nonverbal info. As socionics accepts intuition as one of ways of knowledge, even equal to logics, - so "impressions" always were important in typing. One of things which gives us impressions is nonverbal behavior of the typed. You could meet in descriptions of types and dichotomies the "impressions" from people of some type. MBT should have this factor too as they use interview, not only the test, but probably they prefer to keep this way for typing as "hiden", as looking not too "scientific".
I did comparative typing on socioforum with using nonverbal method - were typed bloggers with their random videos. Many typers have gotten match near 20%, what is much higher than 6% of random, and this was statistically correct (<5% mistake). This have proven nonverbal methods have objective basis, despite are mostly based on intuition.

Socionics "accepts" intuition? Is there someone who does not? Except my theoretical doubts that is...

[Capitalist Pig]

You have some of the best material and articles I've seen on type.
I feel like I should have spent the last four years on this site, instead of elsewhere.


A little about me... I've been pursuing an objective means to quantify type for the past four years or so, and my journey has taken me through a lot of error-checking and diverse hypothesis.

My approach has been one of using body language -- but not in the loosely defined way people typically implement. The goal was to see if the similarities we see in people and subconsciously use to say things like "yep, that's definitely a Beta" could be quantified and correlated to the actual functions and actual, dynamic expressions (rather than face structure)

As I did this, starting in the MBTI camp, I discovered myself coming to a very similar general alignment with Socionics. And as Socionics seems to have an appreciation for visual identification, I hope I can fit in~

It's a pleasure to meet you

LOL Ha ha! Welcome, you'll fit right in ^_^

[Aylen]

I did, with the help of my closest friend. ^^

I could post more, but I don't want to overstep my (so kind) welcome... as these ideas come from a new and different model than Socionics... and I don't wanna start an uproar. I will pm you with it instead.

This forum needs a good uproar.

and I am "officially" welcoming you.