All you Need to Type Yourself

[jason_m]

The only things you need to type yourself are as follows:

1) A good general description of the behaviours of each type, such as what can be found at Socionics.com. I'm not saying that Socionics.com is an authoritative source of information. What I am saying is that the method that they use to describe the types is a good standard to go by. (That does not mean that the way they've implemented it is good.)

2) An understanding of each of the functions. You only need this to determine: 1) your dominant function, 2) your creative function, 3) your role function, and 4) your PoLR function. A good description involving illustrating the use of the functions in each of these positions is useful.

Using these two tools is your best bet for determining your type. The reason for this is because these are the most basic aspects of Socionics theory, and the most relevant with regards to your actual behaviour. Things such as what quadra you're in, what your dual type is, what functions you value but don't use, your appearance, etc. are theories that are more on the periphery of Socionics. In other words, they are less proven, so they should be less dependable.

Jason

[Slacker]

Functions, yes. Behaviors, no. Two different people of different types could exhibit the same behavior for a number of different socionics-related reasons, let alone non-socionics related reasons. Behavior might give some clues that might point in the right directions within the context of functional usage, but behaviors aren't a good typing tool. They can get people stuck on some irrelevant behavior and therefore thinking they're some type they aren't as easily as they can help.

[Park]

This might sound like a cliche but focusing on motivations is much more important than behavior and actions themselves. Unfortunately, most socionics type descriptions drift into behaviors and outwards appearance and focus on results rather than motivation and purpose, which can oftentimes be misleading because of the irrelevance of the information given.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

I agree Winter. Though it isn't even really about motivations but about mental information processes. How you do/say things, not what you do/say. If you don't have a good handle on the deeper inner working of things then studying socionics would do nothing for you. In fact, you wouldn't even be attracted to it in the first place. Because it's about how you process/give/receive information in an underlying way, not really about actions or decisions or what hobbies you have. Those are all still completely up to you, but it can help you understand yourself better so you can have the life you want. I guess. I'm sure some functions can correlate with some actions which can then correlate with patterns of behavior and your general lifestyle; but it's too far of a reach. We simply get along with people for different reasons that have nothing to do with their interests. (obviously you wouldn't get along with somebody who's interests clash with your core values)

You can only live life to the fullest by being around psychologically compatible people as they get you to do new things without being neurotic/fearful... help you to find the real you better. It all makes sense. You're not going to make a right decision for yourself if you feel pressured/stressed about doing so. I'm just saying, I wouldn't blame anybody for being a hermit if they grew up in a community where almost everybody was in an opposing quadra, but then when/if you get to explore a community that naturally & effortlessly accepts you it's like your whole world opens up. It's quite beautiful.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Unfortunately, most socionics type descriptions drift into behaviors and outwards appearance and focus on results rather than motivation and purpose, which can oftentimes be misleading because of the irrelevance of the information given.

Yeah like that whole thing about EIIs not liking violent images or porn or whatever. That is SUCH bullshit and too much of a leap. It's more subtle and mentally nuanced than that. I'm sure there are EIIs who absolutely ADORE sites like rotten.com. They might come across that way, as I don't think they're going to be all 'porn is cool!' like some betas would but you are essentially prejudging them based on stereotypical factors. Reminds me of a counselor I had that thought I should take up chess just because I'm quiet & superficially nerdy, which is shit-stupid because chess actually requires one to have a good dose of :se: which I don't have. I'm good at other introverted loser-boy activities, like creative writing, but that's because I can use my primary function there and it's energizing.

In the end, you do choices to get physically stimulated, not bored- sometimes even against your principals. If you didn't, well... especially in American society it would be hard not to outcast yourself. But what those actions & behaviors mean to you, how you process the information during those activities, that can tell you a lot about yourself. With the right informational elements you will be able to persuade compatible type to do what you want. And sometimes you want something so badly, but if you can't communicate the information in a way that the other person can relate to, it won't happen.

Fuck this overidealization of 'actions' just because humanity is naturally insecure about underlying principals.

[reyn_til_runa]

This might sound like a cliche but focusing on motivations is much more important than behavior and actions themselves. Unfortunately, most socionics type descriptions drift into behaviors and outwards appearance and focus on results rather than motivation and purpose, which can oftentimes be misleading because of the irrelevance of the information given.

good pt.

i guess it comes down to focusing more on general trends than on specific behaviors. of course, specific behaviors can help illuminate general trends, though.

i also echo this:

2) An understanding of each of the information elements and how they relate on a functional basis in Model A for the type you are considering.

^which is precisely why i think of socionics functions as occupying space and exhibiting motion and the like. it's easier for me to visualize relationships literally sometimes.