Typing Methodologies

I don't remember when the last "How do you type!?" thread has been created, but this is going to be contrasting in the manner of "How do you apply Socionics to reality and get something useful out of it?" It's readily apparent that there are differing views which are ultimately the amount of how many members there are here. I thought it would be insightful to share how we all find Socionics useful, such as having personal rules of thumbs or ideologies. I'm hoping this can be less of a "This method is right, this method is wrong" in hopes for a more holistic approach to the subject at large. For example, maybe you VI first and this gives you a better frame of reference to then start deducing what type a person is. Or, when talking to the person in question, you throw out key words or concepts and see how they react to them, and see how that may correlate to type. Also share what about Socionics you'd like there to be clarity/improvement, as well as certain practices or techniques you use. I'm interested to see descriptions along the line of "A Day in the Life of a 'Socionist,'" how an awareness of a process like Socionics has changed how you look at things, and would be helpful for everyone to know.

I have been more than 5 years reading about Socionics and Psychology. It's like learning a foreign language: at the beginning, I was slow at reading, I couldn't understand what I was being told, etc. Speaking on Socionics, now I can usually recognize a type promptly: movements, facial expressions, clothes, what they talk about and how they interact with me...
Typing is an instinct, not a method
FREE YOUR MIND, :Ne: :Si:

+1. You learn to pick up on people's type.

Quote:

---

Typing is an instinct, not a method

---

The instinctive approach is near useless. The only reason people engage in it is because they have a religious belief in their own abilities. They think that they are the next "typing messiah" that gets all the answers right just by guessing at them. Meanwhile, everybody reaches different conclusions on any person's type when applying the "vibe-typing" method. If in such a situation only one person can be right about the type, it follows that the rest of them are terminally deluded. Add to this the fact that the person that is "right" across different cases is not even always the same person, and you get a really dismal view of the sanity of people who engage in this childish game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by labcoat

The instinctive approach is near useless. The only reason people engage in it is because they have a religious belief in their own abilities. They think that they are the next "typing messiah" that gets all the answers right just by guessing at them. Meanwhile, everybody reaches different conclusions on any person's type when applying the "vibe-typing" method. If in such a situation only one person can be right about the type, it follows that the rest of them are terminally deluded. Add to this the fact that the person that is "right" across different cases is not even always the same person, and you get a really dismal view of the sanity of people who engage in this childish game.

---

Well, as far as I know an Si leading person would be interested in health, balance of life, pleasurable sensations. However what about the Si leading types that are fat and live life excessively or the ISFps who are extremely work focused and have risen quite highly in their careers? The health is negligent in one, the balance of life negligent in both, and the pleasurable sensations negligent in the later - perhaps even all three in the latter.

Unfortunately, socionics, the functions, the types are so vague and ill-defined in any practical sense that so often it is the case that we have to rely on 'intuitive' impressions of peoples types. Even going by 'the book' eg wikisocion produces incorrect assessments of peoples types.

Socionics is a pseudo science which might not actually even exist. Perhaps it's just a philosophical approach to people and relationships.

I would like to agree with you and do things without any instinctive approach, but perhaps considering what i've wrote, you could advise me how it is to be avoided? The only way I can see to avoid it is for a person just to create their own understanding or rather - a more correct word - interpretation of socionics, which no matter how well layered it is, is still built upon some form of 'instinct', personal impression etc.

That socionics isn't objectively defined - I simply back this up by demonstrating every type discussion and every discussion about the functions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by labcoat

The instinctive approach is near useless. The only reason people engage in it is because they have a religious belief in their own abilities. They think that they are the next "typing messiah" that gets all the answers right just by guessing at them. Meanwhile, everybody reaches different conclusions on any person's type when applying the "vibe-typing" method. If in such a situation only one person can be right about the type, it follows that the rest of them are terminally deluded. Add to this the fact that the person that is "right" across different cases is not even always the same person, and you get a really dismal view of the sanity of people who engage in this childish game.

---

I am generally in agreement with this, but I think it's only fair for you to share what you do instead of coming in just to criticize others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Words

Unfortunately, socionics, the functions, the types are so vague and ill-defined in any practical sense that so often it is the case that we have to rely on 'intuitive' impressions of peoples types. Even going by 'the book' eg wikisocion produces incorrect assessments of peoples types.

---

You bring up a lot of good points and questions, all of which were in my mid as I decided to make this post. I think everyone has to to this conclusion and question what they have established in their minds (this is how my "Socionics journey" went, if you will), but it's possible only certain types (not Socionic) of people will indeed question the validity and consistency of the terms both used by "sources" and by the community. Whether or not they are isn't the ultimate question that everyone will arrive to the same answer, but I do think it's imperative that everyone does question and come to a well thought out answer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Words

Socionics is a pseudo science which might not actually even exist. Perhaps it's just a philosophical approach to people and relationships.

---

More and more I lean towards this, because I find there will never be enough motivation or ability to test Socionics, and if so, anyone can ultimately say anything "inspired" by Socionics' writing. This is what I'd like this thread to be about, I'm curious to know how everyone came to their current understanding and application of Socionics, or at least have people start asking themselves this question. Though, it might turn some discussion moot in others' opinions, which wouldn't be ideal since there are people who think there is a general right way and general wrong way to do this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Words

I would like to agree with you and do things without any instinctive approach, but perhaps considering what i've wrote, you could advise me how it is to be avoided? The only way I can see to avoid it is for a person just to create their own understanding or rather - a more correct word - interpretation of socionics, which no matter how well layered it is, is still built upon some form of 'instinct', personal impression etc.

---

Your own subjective understanding how Socionics and how you deal with things such as Socionics will be the foundation of everything you learn, and it's hard if not impossible to get rid of it, and it's almost unnecessary to. To have it be the focus, well, that's debatable, but that might just go under having a different interpretation like you mentioned. Even Labcoat goes along with a rather predictable manner of responding to certain posts (this isn't to call him out, but rather say that even someone who brings up that you can't allow your instincts to rule your understanding, you ultimately had that instinct already. It's just not completely a bad thing). The only thing I've come up with is to come up with certain criteria and make sure you follow them from the beginning, and then update each time you learn something new.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Words

That socionics isn't objectively defined - I simply back this up by demonstrating every type discussion and every discussion about the functions.

---

:thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mattie

I don't remember when the last "How do you type!?" thread has been created, but this is going to be contrasting in the manner of "How do you apply Socionics to reality and get something useful out of it?" It's readily apparent that there are differing views which are ultimately the amount of how many members there are here. I thought it would be insightful to share how we all find Socionics useful, such as having personal rules of thumbs or ideologies. I'm hoping this can be less of a "This method is right, this method is wrong" in hopes for a more holistic approach to the subject at large. For example, maybe you VI first and this gives you a better frame of reference to then start deducing what type a person is. Or, when talking to the person in question, you throw out key words or concepts and see how they react to them, and see how that may correlate to type. Also share what about Socionics you'd like there to be clarity/improvement, as well as certain practices or techniques you use. I'm interested to see descriptions along the line of "A Day in the Life of a 'Socionist,'" how an awareness of a process like Socionics has changed how you look at things, and would be helpful for everyone to know.

---

Now that I'm an 'experienced' typer, I go largely by processes of transference and counter-transference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mattie

I don't remember when the last "How do you type!?" thread has been created, but this is going to be contrasting in the manner of "How do you apply Socionics to reality and get something useful out of it?" It's readily apparent that there are differing views which are ultimately the amount of how many members there are here. I thought it would be insightful to share how we all find Socionics useful, such as having personal rules of thumbs or ideologies. I'm hoping this can be less of a "This method is right, this method is wrong" in hopes for a more holistic approach to the subject at large. For example, maybe you VI first and this gives you a better frame of reference to then start deducing what type a person is. Or, when talking to the person in question, you throw out key words or concepts and see how they react to them, and see how that may correlate to type. Also share what about Socionics you'd like there to be clarity/improvement, as well as certain practices or techniques you use. I'm interested to see descriptions along the line of "A Day in the Life of a 'Socionist,'" how an awareness of a process like Socionics has changed how you look at things, and would be helpful for everyone to know.

---

The way you speak of holistic approach yet focus on explicit steps and possibilities sounds Ne to me - internal, but object-focused element.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mattie

I am generally in agreement with this, but I think it's only fair for you to share what you do instead of coming in just to criticize others.

You bring up a lot of good points and questions, all of which were in my mid as I decided to make this post. I think everyone has to to this conclusion and question what they have established in their minds (this is how my "Socionics journey" went, if you will), but it's possible only certain types (not Socionic) of people will indeed question the validity and consistency of the terms both used by "sources" and by the community. Whether or not they are isn't the ultimate question that everyone will arrive to the same answer, but I do think it's imperative that everyone does question and come to a well thought out answer.

More and more I lean towards this, because I find there will never be enough motivation or ability to test Socionics, and if so, anyone can ultimately say anything "inspired" by Socionics' writing. This is what I'd like this thread to be about, I'm curious to know how everyone came to their current understanding and application of Socionics, or at least have people start asking themselves this question. Though, it might turn some discussion moot in others' opinions, which wouldn't be ideal since there are people who think there is a general right way and general wrong way to do this.

Your own subjective understanding how Socionics and how you deal with things such as Socionics will be the foundation of everything you learn, and it's hard if not impossible to get rid of it, and it's almost unnecessary to. To have it be the focus, well, that's debatable, but that might just go under having a different interpretation like you mentioned. Even Labcoat goes along with a rather predictable manner of responding to certain posts (this isn't to call him out, but rather say that even someone who brings up that you can't allow your instincts to rule your understanding, you ultimately had that instinct already. It's just not completely a bad thing). The only thing I've come up with is to come up with certain criteria and make sure you follow them from the beginning, and then update each time you learn something new.

:thumbsup:

---

You seem to have come into socionics with a preconceived notion of it in mind, of what it is if not how it is - open to learn it, but with a preconception of it itself. This is characteristic of static ego, introverted function of which is rational - the context may be explicit or not, but it's set. As well, rather than consider the existing theory in an abstract matter, you come off as personally involved when speaking of its potential, though not emotional - considering your attitude to it based on its potential.

The way you speak of sources and then constructing an understanding, updating it, is inherently static again. In static types, things are perceived and add up to a judging framework. In dynamic types, things are judged individually and perceived holistically, resulting in perspective, a mindset rather than a core model. The key concepts here are construction and emergence; both seem to yield comparable results as far as socionics is concerned.

So static, Ne and Fi. I would probably add that you seem more determined about Fi and natural about Ne, which would suggest Fi covering for Ti-PoLR while you don't seem to feel the need to prove anything about Ne; an IEE dynamic.

---

Well, you did ask for practical examples. There go my :Ni: mystical vibes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mattie

More and more I lean towards this, because I find there will never be enough motivation or ability to test Socionics, and if so, anyone can ultimately say anything "inspired" by Socionics' writing. This is what I'd like this thread to be about, I'm curious to know how everyone came to their current understanding and application of Socionics, or at least have people start asking themselves this question. Though, it might turn some discussion moot in others' opinions, which wouldn't be ideal since there are people who think there is a general right way and general wrong way to do this.

---

how much jung have you read? you should read some jung.

When I try to apply socionics, I try to keep in mind what socionics is. (information metabolism; essentially, what people are aware of and focus on.) I then look for anything which might signify key aspects of an element. What does this person focus on? How do their thoughts reflect their focus? How do their actions reflect their focus? I try to get into people's motivations and thoughts and derive where those motivations might have come from. A lot of the time it's unclear as a single action could the result of many different motivations, and motivation from many different awarenesses. I keep in mind that getting into people's heads is not easy, and often impossible unless they're willing to bring you in. I rely on my ability interpret the reasoning of things and people's vibes, but it's a constant battle of building up and then breaking down the conclusions I come to. Over time I've begun to realize the impracticality of trying to do quick typings, and I only give typings weight in situations where I'm able to get really close to a person and be sure I know them at a deep level.

Really the only thing of practical use I get out of socionics on a daily bases is the realization that people just have different ways of thinking about things and a way to try to rationalize it. I might assign a type or traits of a type to a person in order to understand where their coming from and adjust my perspective in order reach a compromise in situations of misunderstanding or general disagreement. But, often these traits I assign to the person are temporary in order to get through the misunderstanding. Assigning a permanent type to someone takes a long time and generally just doesn't happen as it's too impractical to come to any finalized sense of certainty that I have figured out their true type. There are a number who I will give provisional types to, but they're all very subject to change, and I really don't give any weight to the typing making it essentially pointless.

Typing by comparison. (You do need a large database in your mind of people and their behaviour.)

If it walks and talks like a certain type, it is part of that type category.

I have developed a cynical outlook towards typology. Typing rarely seems to be employed in a methodological manner. More often than not typing becomes an exercise of "I hate you" or "You rub me the wrong way," so you are in my opposing quadra. Or "I like you" or "You do not annoy me as much as others," so you must be in my quadra or an adjacent one. And of course the all too frequent, "You're so hawt, I want you in my quadra right now!"

You're so hawt, I want you in my quadra right now!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by consentingadult

Now that I'm an 'experienced' typer, I go largely by processes of transference and counter-transference.

---

Mind explaining this in a little more detail? I'm unfamiliar with what you're talking about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aiss

Well, you did ask for practical examples. There go my :Ni: mystical vibes.

---

Can't argue with that :P I'm guessing that you identify through dichotomies to gain context until you can start to spot the IMEs and their positions?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ilikesex

how much jung have you read? you should read some jung.

---

Most of the Jung I've read had to do with his other observations (archetypes such as shadow, anima, etc) rather than his functions. I have obtained his writing on psychological types and plan to read it when I have time. Why do you suggest this in particular, and I guess a more pertinent questions would be, has specifically reading him altered your typing methodology?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Azeroffs

I rely on my ability interpret the reasoning of things and people's vibes, but it's a constant battle of building up and then breaking down the conclusions I come to. Over time I've begun to realize the impracticality of trying to do quick typings, and I only give typings weight in situations where I'm able to get really close to a person and be sure I know them at a deep level.

---

Interesting, for me, something usually tips me off when I'm not looking to type them, and it makes me think "Oooh, this seems like such a good example of >insert IME in a function position here<" and then look to see if it reoccurs. I also find that quick typings are less useful, and over time when the person as a whole is really incorporated into your understanding, and what they do is Socionics-related and what isn't, then it starts to... mean something to you. You experience it and then understand, rather than mentally putting it together.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Azeroffs

Really the only thing of practical use I get out of socionics on a daily bases is the realization that people just have different ways of thinking about things and a way to try to rationalize it. I might assign a type or traits of a type to a person in order to understand where their coming from and adjust my perspective in order reach a compromise in situations of misunderstanding or general disagreement. But, often these traits I assign to the person are temporary in order to get through the misunderstanding. Assigning a permanent type to someone takes a long time and generally just doesn't happen as it's too impractical to come to any finalized sense of certainty that I have figured out their true type. There are a number who I will give provisional types to, but they're all very subject to change, and I really don't give any weight to the typing making it essentially pointless.

---

Huh, usually I feel comfortable with typing someone, but it's not completely etched in stone. I keep the typing until it seems like a lot of information conflicts with the typing (I had a typing of NeTi for my best friend, and as I started to realize certain communication differences, I realized the potential for her being TiNe, and then as I mulled this over, I realized she's been TiNe all along) and use it to understand misunderstandings. I would say I benefited by understanding that certain things people said (like my best friend) weren't being rude, malicious, or intentionally difficult, and I apply Socionics to discern this. I also use it to adjust how I explain things as well, and to anticipate certain issues and prepare for them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jarno

Typing by comparison. (You do need a large database in your mind of people and their behaviour.)

If it walks and talks like a certain type, it is part of that type category.

---

My question to you would be how did you get your database, and how did you check your database before it was large enough to be reliable?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Logos

I have developed a cynical outlook towards typology. Typing rarely seems to be employed in a methodological manner. More often than not typing becomes an exercise of "I hate you" or "You rub me the wrong way," so you are in my opposing quadra. Or "I like you" or "You do not annoy me as much as others," so you must be in my quadra or an adjacent one. And of course the all too frequent, "You're so hawt, I want you in my quadra right now!"

---

I can understand this cynicism when it comes to the forum, but does this affect you as well? Are you unable to control your own urges? I was hoping for a personal methodology rather than the critique of others'.

When I first discovered socionics I read up on the descriptions of the types to get a clear idea in my head of what they were like. I already had some idea, based on MBTI so that part wasnt difficult. After that i immediatly started typing people I knew. As it turned out many of these typings were wrong, some were not. After that I got a better idea of the types and had some common trends in my mind based upon the typings i had made. Now with these common trends I tend to type based on surface impressions i get of people, mainly their behavior and relations with other types.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mattie

I can understand this cynicism when it comes to the forum, but does this affect you as well? Are you unable to control your own urges? I was hoping for a personal methodology rather than the critique of others'.

---

This phenomenon affects everyone unequally. Though asking whether or not I am "unable to control [my] own urges" makes it sound as if it was deviant or perverted behavior. I would say that it becomes easier to reflect on the matter of a subject's type through continual self-awareness of this phenomenon. Sometimes I must ask, What preconceptions do I have about the subject? What preconceptions do I have about a type? Do I have an agenda with this subject? What do I know about them, and more importantly, what do I not know? Is the foundation for my conclusion built upon well-reasoned evidence or intuition?

I used to compose a list of actions they performed in what situations and then subjected them to a socionics analysis. This usually involved drawing parallels from their actions to the socionics IEs or descriptions. Aside from being very shady and creepy to have a big database of this, it could take hours if it was complicated enough.

 

Nowadays I recognize how totally inconsistent and wrong human memory is, so that database was really just a subconcious projection of my prejudice. I feel as though interactions with people are like dreams; the further in time you are from the experience, the further you will be from understanding. So I believe in speculation in the moment/right after, but not rushed. I've been trying to come up with a system based on the IEs to make this process easier, which involves reducing the IEs to very abstract concepts applied very indirectly by people in conversation; i.e. he's taking the initiative and speaking very confidently about this, what function is he using (how is he explaining it)? Now this other one is responding to him; how do they relate and is this a relation of functions? It's really intense!

Occasionally I picture everything I know about that person in my mind, trying on different types until one 'fits'. I really need to know them well enough to predict their behavior like that though.

 

A list of benchmark types; comparison is a great way to type someone! What bothers me most about it is that you could have been wrong in the first place, making it self-defeating...
Being around the person for a long time; anything you speculate before this is unreliable. I honestly don't think you can reasonably type anyone if you haven't spent extended periods of time with them, i.e. several sittings of several hours +.
Being around socionics for a long time; By seeking out new materials and reviewing/discussing the old ones I feel I have a more fleshed out version of the IEs.
Getting to know the person.. personally; 1on1 time will give you insights to what they're good at/what they like to do and a general overview of their life if you get that far in conversation.

 

Trying to explain a type based on intertype relations; Typing should be clear and not require abstract explanation. You could be wrong on the other guys' types too.
Typing based on personal feelings; your typings will change as often as your feelings! :lol:
Taking another's typing for truth; it ain't true till you've gotten your own hands dirty. I've friends who are just bad.

In general; Vibe typing bad. Don't rely on more than one person to type one person.

Objective typing;

I think objective understanding can be achieved to an extent; instead of blowing the IEs out of proportion in order to compare them to people's actions, I try to simplify people's actions until they compare to the fundamental basic functions. This is why I disagree with removing the essential basics from the functions; though a person's actions may not be forceful, once simplified and examined at their most primitive level they could resemble force.
Clearly, using this method, the problem no longer lies in the interpretation of the functions but rather the examination and simplification of another's actions, which leaves much less room for error imo, especially if you understand the person and their motives.

@words; I held your position a couple months ago; that socionics lacks any application and that it may just be imagined. That's why I tried to learn to apply socionics at its very basic level that left no room for interpretation of the functions but still works.

TBH; you'll never be able to get this crap out of your head so best learn to live with it... that's what I told myself anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mattie

Interesting, for me, something usually tips me off when I'm not looking to type them, and it makes me think "Oooh, this seems like such a good example of >insert IME in a function position here<" and then look to see if it reoccurs. I also find that quick typings are less useful, and over time when the person as a whole is really incorporated into your understanding, and what they do is Socionics-related and what isn't, then it starts to... mean something to you. You experience it and then understand, rather than mentally putting it together.

---

Quote:

---

Huh, usually I feel comfortable with typing someone, but it's not completely etched in stone. I keep the typing until it seems like a lot of information conflicts with the typing (I had a typing of NeTi for my best friend, and as I started to realize certain communication differences, I realized the potential for her being TiNe, and then as I mulled this over, I realized she's been TiNe all along) and use it to understand misunderstandings.

---

Yeah I do the same as what you said here except that I purposefully question myself in order to make sure I have the right typing. But, I have problems with the inherent uncertainty of typings, and the general inability to say beyond a doubt that person is a certain type. So when I break down the uncertain parts, in many cases I could throw out the whole typing. What use is a typing you can't be certain of? How could I possibly make a a decision based on it? How can a make a comparison? Hell, I even question my type from time to time. Of what practical use something like that? I'm pretty comfortable forming opinions, but it doesn't go beyond that except in rare instances, and I'm not willing to base anything on that.

I know that practicality has nothing to do with the topic at hand, but it affects my typing method by scrutinizing it to death so that I might be able to predict how a relationship might turn out or whatever else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Azeroffs

Yeah I do the same as what you said here except that I purposefully question myself in order to make sure I have the right typing. But, I have problems with the inherent uncertainty of typings, and the general inability to say beyond a doubt that person is a certain type. So when I break down the uncertain parts, in many cases I could throw out the whole typing. What use is a typing you can't be certain of? How could I possibly make a a decision based on it? How can a make a comparison? Hell, I even question my type from time to time. Of what practical use something like that? I'm pretty comfortable forming opinions, but it doesn't go beyond that except in rare instances, and I'm not willing to base anything on that.

I know that practicality has nothing to do with the topic at hand, but it affects my typing method by scrutinizing it to death so that I might be able to predict how a relationship might turn out or whatever else.

---

I beg to differ. Practicality is of enormous importance when discussing methodology. What use are impractical methodologies?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Logos

I beg to differ. Practicality is of enormous importance when discussing methodology. What use are impractical methodologies?

---

I meant the practicality of a typing once established. Basically the practicallity of socionics itself. It's mostly irrelevant to the method one uses in order to come to a typing. Or am I wrong? I'm not sure I understod you correctly.

Basically my whole complaint is that I have to use an impractical method to get some practical use, and even then the practicality is questionable.

I've no commitment to any given theoretical framework in Socionics—be it Model A, B, T, X, DCNH, or otherwise. So long as Socionics theory remains non-falsifiable, then asserting detailed models about Socionics in lieu of requisite means for experimental verification is a senseless exercise. I opt instead more for general heuristics that seem conducive to accurate & consistent typing. The overall approach tends to be multi-modal and thus broadly inclusive of many different kinds of evidence (catalogued below), with original 1°-source evidence re: the individual taking precedence over anecdotal 2°-sources & interpretations (unless the former is unavailable).

There are of course certain attributes I corroborate as typologically meaningful, along with certain conventional factors I intentionally discount—such as personal competencies, skill-sets, hobbies, and professional achievements. At best these might be weak correlates of type, yet their associated confound potential is high enough to render them unworthy of much consideration—e.g. someone being a venture capitalist shouldn't imply a likelihood of ENTj, someone being a theoretical physicist shouldn't lead to assumptions of ENTp, and so on.

I'm also dismissive of behavioral trait attributions, given their susceptibility to specious biasing errors errors (an entire sub-branch of psychology is topically devoted to this). In short, your idea of "aggressive behavior" may be quite different from my idea of it, such that one seemingly blunt, brash, and forceful to you, may in fact seem largely normal for whatever reason(s) to me.

In a nutshell I'd say: Socionics is better suited as a study of phenomenological cognition, rather than being a theory about efficacy or behavior. Ergo re: typology, I'm less interested in what a person does or how well [they think they do it]; I'm more interested in how they do whatever, and the ways they tend to perceive & experience reality.

Of factors I've been able to infer as reliable type indices, I try not to rely on any singular isolated factor alone to determine a typing. I instead try to gain an overall portrait from a variety of different evidentiary perspectives at my disposal, and see what that converges towards.

Depending on availability, I'll consider any of the following factors:

• Images and/or videos, preferably capturing the individual from a variety of different angles and expressions. Source media must be candid, non-airbrushed, and large/clear enough to notice aspects of that individual's face and demeanor which may be relevant for purposes of VI. I've been able to note certain characteristic patterns of facial muscle activity unique to each type. Recognizing these patterns can be learned, though they're not always immediately apparent. It's important to consider the many ways in which human faces can appear similar or dissimilar in contrast—merely looking like someone is not necessarily the same as VI-ing like someone. The use of VI-like approaches in gauging human personality is an active subject of contemporary psych research, as well. For instance, this article discusses links between facial appearance and Big 5 Trait Theory (link). I've a dozen or so other papers dealing with similar topical matter if anyone's interested.
• Bearing and demeanor in video. What are the person's eye movements like, in what kind of poise do they tend to hold their body, what patterns of muscular tension or slackness are present and where, what sorts of gesticulations do they frequently make? Much of this factors into VI, particularly for purposes of identifying temperament.
• Tone, cadence, semantics, and syntactical patterns present in one's style of speech and/or writing. The syntax structures and semantic content of one's discourse can give a wealth of constructive insight into how they think, what they tend to notice about reality and how, what their preferred modes of understanding are, what qualitative themes color their subjective experiences, and so forth. I corroborate much of this using the Sematics of IEs research page (link). The central unifying question in inferring such data is, "How do they seem to be consistently experiencing and internalizing information, and what qualities about it do they frequently emphasize?" I also try to get an idea of the epistemological values they seem to hold—i.e., upon what standards do they deem something as being valid or useful knowledge? What is their decision-making process like and upon what basis do they seem to be arriving at their judgments?
• Themes present in what they profess to be their values, outlooks, and motives in life—and most importantly, why? What is this person’s 'ontological disposition'—i.e. what sorts of concepts, ideas, and principles do they consider meaningful or condemn as meaningless? Are there particular philosophical or spiritual outlooks they gravitate towards?
• Tastes&preferences in art, aesthetics, and literature. What kinds and forms are they often drawn to, find appealing, or even inspiring? Are there particular artists, writers, comedians, or even actors they enjoy?
• Communication styles and interactions with others of known types that they're personally connected to in any capacity. What sorts of intertype relations make sense as the most plausible between them? This can include but is not limited to: Spouses, significant others, family members, best friends, hated enemies, colleagues, role models, ideological influences, etc. I mostly rely on the intertype relations as they're depicted at socionics.us.
• Spontaneous visceral reactions I have towards the person which I've similarly had towards others of a certain type. Do they attract or repulse me? Do they seem like someone comfortable to be around or someone who'd put me on edge? Do I have a hard time taking them seriously or do they seem to easily command my respect? So on, so forth. These reactions can provide cues about the possible intertype relations between myself and that person.
• Correspondence to certain Reinin dichotomies (link). Thus far, the following seem to contain a grain of observable truth…
  – Static|Dynamic: Tends to be an obvious component of temperament. EJs and IPs are Dynamic, EPs and IJs are Static.
  – Merry|Serious: Useful indicator for :Fe:/:Ti: vs. :Te:/:Fi: value preferences, that shows in a person's typical group interaction style and conversational themes.
  – Democracy|Aristocracy: The kinds of interpersonal criteria one uses to assess others, and what forms of social organization they're inclined towards (open/collaborative or closed/hierarchical).
  – Judicious|Decisive: Contrasts :Ne:/:Si: vs. :Se:/:Ni: value preferences. The former tends towards more leisurely paced environs, the latter tends towards more mobilized states of affairs.
  – Positivist|Negativist:
  – Involutory|Evolutory:
  The remaining dichotomies I ignore; I don't have enough experience noticing them, assuming they exist.
• Miscellaneous quirks, idiosyncracies, and minutia I’ve seen recurrent in others of a given type.

Supporting Sources:

1. General Typology: This interview featuring Lenore Thomson is a great primer on the subject of 'what is personality type?'. This article by James Hillman on typologies is also good.
2. Kepinski's Information Metabolism: Everyone should learn about it as I suspect most will find it interesting. My basic view of Socionics is largely shaped and influenced by this. I've found these ideas both effective and useful as a conceptual approach for understanding the nature of Socionics—insofar as what Socionics 'is', what IEs 'are', and what sorts of phenomena we're dealing with (or should recognize we're dealing with) when we try to talk about Socionics.
3. Temperaments: I utilize the basic Four Temperaments idea that's been around for the past few thousand years—Choleric (EJ), Phlegmatic (IJ), Sanguine (EP), Melancholic (IP). I'll find a decent source on this.
4. Information Elements: I largely draw upon Jung's original founding descriptions here, Rick's definitions here and here, and can see promise in Lenore Thomson's ideas here.
5. Reinin Dichotomies: I mostly work from these explanations, along with some characterizations from a few other Socionists.
6. DarkAngelFireWolf69's Cognitive Styles: As described in this article, are proving to be another excellent resource for type screening and verification purposes.
7. Intertype Relations: I evaluate these along the same lines as described here and here.
8. Miscellaneous: I use the same 4 quadras with the same 16 basic sociotypes divided among them, each defined by the same 'ego' and 'superid' blocks, etc. I use subtypes too—just the usual accepting/producing 2, no DCNH or anything like that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mattie

Can't argue with that :P I'm guessing that you identify through dichotomies to gain context until you can start to spot the IMEs and their positions?

---

I find myself using mostly IA/IE dichotomies these days, though it really depends on what's most pronounced. In my experience, Jungian dichotomies don't tend to be clear in most cases - I wouldn't be surprised if there was in fact normal distribution, or close enough - but I'll use them if they seem obviously applicable to a person. I consider it most significant if I notice Si/Ne or Ni/Se dynamic, or the same with rational functions, which I suppose could be written down as Reinin's judicious/decisive and merry/serious, but I don't really conform to his ideas about these types.

I tend to wait until I see something than do a check for signs, most of all. If you look for something, you're likely to find it whether it is or isn't there. Not that you can't imagine seeing things, but as it's hard to verify on-spot, it counts as a clue.

Also, I probably wouldn't have commented as I did about your writing if I weren't somehow acquainted with you and considered myself able to tell what's typical for you. Or if it were less about your approach and more about opinions.

Quote:

---

Huh, usually I feel comfortable with typing someone, but it's not completely etched in stone. I keep the typing until it seems like a lot of information conflicts with the typing (I had a typing of NeTi for my best friend, and as I started to realize certain communication differences, I realized the potential for her being TiNe, and then as I mulled this over, I realized she's been TiNe all along) and use it to understand misunderstandings.

---

:) It reminds me of an argument we had long time ago about typing and mirrors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skeptic

TBH; you'll never be able to get this crap out of your head so best learn to live with it... that's what I told myself anyway.

---

So true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Typhon

When I first discovered socionics I read up on the descriptions of the types to get a clear idea in my head of what they were like. I already had some idea, based on MBTI so that part wasnt difficult. After that i immediatly started typing people I knew. As it turned out many of these typings were wrong, some were not. After that I got a better idea of the types and had some common trends in my mind based upon the typings i had made. Now with these common trends I tend to type based on surface impressions i get of people, mainly their behavior and relations with other types.

---

Mind giving some examples on what these sort of trends are? Are there some types of trends that are more influential on your typing than others? And what are the differences between the MBTI types and Socionics types, that you've noticed, in practice? Do ENTPs tend to be NeTi, etc?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Logos

This phenomenon affects everyone unequally. Though asking whether or not I am "unable to control [my] own urges" makes it sound as if it was deviant or perverted behavior. I would say that it becomes easier to reflect on the matter of a subject's type through continual self-awareness of this phenomenon. Sometimes I must ask, What preconceptions do I have about the subject? What preconceptions do I have about a type? Do I have an agenda with this subject? What do I know about them, and more importantly, what do I not know? Is the foundation for my conclusion built upon well-reasoned evidence or intuition?

---

I read your original post thinking you were putting a negative light on what you were describing, which is why I said what I did. But I find myself doing this as well, especially when I come to any knee-jerk assessments; I think it's a good rule of thumb to be weary of why you came to a certain conclusion, and to "fact-check" so-to-speak. I also try out typing them another type possibility as a counter-argument, if you will, and see if the original type was a better suggestion or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skeptic

Objective typing;

I think objective understanding can be achieved to an extent; instead of blowing the IEs out of proportion in order to compare them to people's actions, I try to simplify people's actions until they compare to the fundamental basic functions. This is why I disagree with removing the essential basics from the functions; though a person's actions may not be forceful, once simplified and examined at their most primitive level they could resemble force.

---

What exactly do you mean by "Objective Typing" and what do you consider the "basics" of IAs, IMEs, and the functions? And what is the methodology of how you "simplify" peoples' actions, and how is this useful? I'm not trying to quiz-show you, I'm genuinely curious about this paragraph.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skeptic

Clearly, using this method, the problem no longer lies in the interpretation of the functions but rather the examination and simplification of another's actions, which leaves much less room for error imo, especially if you understand the person and their motives.

---

From my understanding, this would cause a lot of trouble. First, you're typing by actions that you don't necessarily know the motivation behind, and because of your type, you seem them in a particular manner. Just as an example and not to drag through theory, you will have a hard time not rationalizing something under your leading IME and it's likely you will not be able to directly observe your Role IME without dedication; and you won't always be having this switch on. So you're always under the influence having an interpretation, putting aside the argument that your subjective understanding of Socionics is, well, subjective. It would take a good amount of time to know a person so well that you can detect their motives to explain each of their actions... I'm not sure, I'd like to hear why you came to this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Azeroffs

Basically my whole complaint is that I have to use an impractical method to get some practical use, and even then the practicality is questionable.

---

For some reason, I don't find impracticality in how I type and the result. I think it's because I actively try using that information to see if something good can come out of it. It might come from that I've always been confident about my type and when I seem to go through a paradigm shift of understanding, I have confidence in myself to translate things over and adjust how I've been handling things. This also might come from that my ultimate aim to use Socionics as a practical tool, as it seems pretty useless to me otherwise; I don't find it a strong tool at the moment, or it's one who of electric drills with 3445 power settings and I only figured out the go button and make do with that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashton

My only requirement is that the overwhelming majority of evidence must be of a firsthand (i.e. primary source) nature. I don't like secondhand opinions or intepretations; I like what I can observe with my own eyes or experience myself through interaction.

---

I find this important because I get very different feelings from people on the forum and in videos and pictures in comparison to my offline interactions. Actually, you don't in person with this, but for me personally, I'd add "In person." The visceral feeling of other people, the fact that you're experiencing them and getting these feelings, create a better context for you as long as you're specifically aware of this context and how it influences you. I had recently plopped down some typing of forum members I've talked a lot with, but even then, something very gaping and missing is evident.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashton

For example, I generally don't put much weight on things such as: Specific competencies or skillsets possessed by that individual, what their professions or hobbies happen to be, what their achievements in life may have been, etc. At best, I'd consider these weak correlates of type

---

This is something I'm generally aligned with and I find a lot of people disagree with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashton

As you might already know, I'm pretty dismissive of behavorial trait attributions as well. I consider them highly misleading and too prone to the Fundamental Attribution Error among other things. In assessing others behavior, the subjective element of perception is an oft-forgotten aspect of Socionics…

[...]


To put it in a nutshell: Socionics is infinitely more useful as a theory about cognition than it is a theory about behavior. I'm less interested in what you do, I'm more interested in how you do it, and in the ways you seem to think, feel, and perceive.

---

I'd like to hear what people have to say to this, because I agree and try not to type based on behavioral traits, but a lot of others' find it to be the way. Is it because there isn't a readily apparent alternative? I already know Ashton's opinion, so I'd wanna hear others'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aiss

I find myself using mostly IA/IE dichotomies these days, though it really depends on what's most pronounced. In my experience, Jungian dichotomies don't tend to be clear in most cases

---

Reminds me of an argument we once had :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aiss

Also, I probably wouldn't have commented as I did about your writing if I weren't somehow acquainted with you and considered myself able to tell what's typical for you. Or if it were less about your approach and more about opinions.

---

What about this was typical, out of curiosity (I want to see what qualities you pick up on), because I'm not really all that great of picking up someone's type on a wall of text.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aiss

:) It reminds me of an argument we had long time ago about typing and mirrors.

---

It differs a little from what we were talking about. Basically, this is my best friend from around the time I started learning MBTI (when I was 12-13; I am now 23, so MBTI has been in my life for 10 years, jeez), and when I typed her then, she was ENTP. Now, over the years, she has been gradually going to INTP, and I would say she is, indeed, INTP, but I kept in my mind that when was ENTP because I never ran into a problem directly with it. The problem comes in with Socionics because of it's close ties to MBTI... I just switched her over as NeTi because it seemed to work, and I was ENFP and translated well over to NeFi, so why not? The first cue I got that something had gone awry with my Socionics was when I had typed a friend of our's NiTe, but then I realized, oh shit, he's really SiFe! How the hell did I type someone their Super-Ego? I came to the conclusion that it was because he was an INTP in MBTI, and that had colored my typing. So I started to rework my typings now that I was aware of that MBTI-bias that helped me understand Socionics but was making my typings wrong, and I still never questioned my best friend's type; until recently. We have been traveling together and are taking a class together for the first time, and the different modes we have are just way too different, I started to question NeTi, and one day, I just popped into my head "What if she is actually TiNe?" and things eerily fell into place. Until then, I thought I interacted with NeTi differently than with my best friend because I had known her for so long, but she also has a lot of TiNe friends and the similarities were just starting to add up too well.

In general, when I type people, I don't have a person as possibly being one type and it's mirror, because I usually have a certain IME in place that would discount the mirror as a possibility. I usually have the creative/mobilizing IMEs figured out first, which would throw out the mirror typing; I believe the discussion we had over this was how typing by IMEs in functions wouldn't allow for certain type either-ors, such as someone saying "I can't tell if I'm NeFi or FeNi." Though, I'd be more willing to accept "I don't know if I'm NeFi or NiFe" over FiNe seeing that the blocks are all in the same configuration, just a different order.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mattie

What exactly do you mean by "Objective Typing" and what do you consider the "basics" of IAs, IMEs, and the functions? And what is the methodology of how you "simplify" peoples' actions, and how is this useful? I'm not trying to quiz-show you, I'm genuinely curious about this paragraph.

---

I'm not trying to objectively type, but get as close as I can. The fundamentals of types and functions I interpret as what is written on wikisocion; that :Se: is force, power, territory, Fe is focus on people, relationships and emotional atmosphere, etc. When I say simplify people's actions I mean getting to the origin of the action; why did they do this? What purpose did it serve for them? When you reduce their actions they more closely resemble the basic functions.

 

I am at a party and Sarah comes up to me and says 'John is upset and doesn't want anyone to talk to him'. I would ask myself; what is her motive in asking me this? Judging based on a number of factors including her tone, body language and past experience with her, I would try to understand what it is she's telling me and what function it is related to. Let's assume she was imploring and visibly upset. This would imply that she wants me to go cheer John up because he's lonely and sad. Her action is then related to :Fe:. On the way to John (assuming we've attempted to cheer him up), she may say 'John is probably angry because he's had a lot to drink and spilt his drink on his couch'. What message is she giving now? It would appear that she is trying to find the source of John's anger by reviewing events in the past leading to the present. It would also appear that she thinks I need to know the cause and effect of John's actions in order to cheer him up. This I would associate with :Ni:, though the phrase is admittedly ambiguous.

For this person I would tentatively consider beta NF. Many more interactions and experiences later I would conclude a type based on what I've seen of the person. Using the other method, you might conclude that she is beta NF for the same reasons and then make a mental note that beta NFs are concerned with how people are feeling at parties. This trait is not exclusive to beta NFs, however, so your understanding of socionics becomes flawed; it is the way in which she was concerned and how she handled it that points to beta NF.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mattie

From my understanding, this would cause a lot of trouble. First, you're typing by actions that you don't necessarily know the motivation behind, and because of your type, you seem them in a particular manner. Just as an example and not to drag through theory, you will have a hard time not rationalizing something under your leading IME and it's likely you will not be able to directly observe your Role IME without dedication; and you won't always be having this switch on. So you're always under the influence having an interpretation, putting aside the argument that your subjective understanding of Socionics is, well, subjective. It would take a good amount of time to know a person so well that you can detect their motives to explain each of their actions... I'm not sure, I'd like to hear why you came to this.

---

Your argument assumes that we need to use a certain IE in order to see that IE. I have always thought that you can see the same :Fe: through :Te: and also through :Ti:. Just because we're using different functions to interpret another doesn't mean our judgement is inherently wrong or biased.

And yes, there is room for error in that we are not always able to correctly find the motivation behind another's actions. Getting to understand people, the philosophy of language etc. will aid in this. The emphasis here is that we're bending people's actions to fit static socionic descriptions as opposed to bending socionics to meet the people.

Also, with this action reduction mentality my understanding of socionics doesn't go any further than what is officially written of socionics. And yes, you absolutely should get to know someone very very well before settling on a type for sure. Usually most people I know are confined to certain areas of certainty, like 'beta NF' or some sort of variation.

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashton

I think it's easy to recognize non-valued functions through the absence of valued functions. That is, :Fe:/:Ti: most often comes across to me as something like "not-:Fi:/:Te:". I also find it useful to treat functions in pairs like this… i.e. if someone seems :Si: valuing, they should necessarily show signs of :Ne:-valuing as well if this is true. It's a simple measure that can help double-check a person's type.

But yeah. I agree w/ you that you don't need to use a certain IE in order to see the IE. All you need to do is learn how to recognize the symptoms of it. Just as say, a psychiatrist can recognize symptoms of schizophrenia without themselves being schizophrenic. However, being able to merely recognize an IE should not be mistaken for actually understanding the nature it…



I don't like this emphasis.



I also disagree with the idea that you need to 'know the person well' in order to type them. Typing is not that deep.

---

Hopefully there is little bending of anything and you are good at interpreting people's motives. If I had to make a mistake, I would rather it be seperate from socionics and more focused on the interpretation of another so that the mistake with socionics does not appear every time I try to type someone (i.e. concluding beta NFs are concerned with people's feelings at a party comes up every time you type a beta NF as opposed to concluding that the way a specific person was concerned with the party was beta NF). It's a case by case thing as opposed to universalizing the descriptions to meet all the beta NFs you know.

Knowing someone real well is what removes doubt. I'll always be doubtful of my typings unless I know them really well; so long as there is a small chance that I am wrong I will be doubtful.

i don't really have a strict "method." i just use whatever i can to determine their Model A - i use different things (listed below) to try and determine IM preferences, functions, dichotomies, etc. to try and piece everything together.

for example i might observe that a person is extroverted, :Si:-superego, and strong in :Fe:, so i'd conclude EIE. however if this was based on a relatively small amount of information i might not consider the typing to be that strong. but if i gather more and more information about a person that turns out to be consistent with the typing, it would only reinforce it. if the new information seems to conflict with my previous conclusion i may drop the typing and reconsider - whether it's the typing or my own understanding of things. generally, everything has to fit or it's hard for me to accept a clear typing. often i have someone's type narrowed down to a few options.

i look at different things, including but not necessarily limited to

- how they communicate and interact with others and their environment
- their relationships and the types of the people they are close to - friends, their significant other, etc.
- what causes them to arrive at their conclusions - determining their thought process
- their behaviors and preferences, if i can reasonably determine something type-related is manifesting itself
- their overall "vibe" and VI: body language, physical presence, expressions, demeanor, eye gaze, etc.
- my own reaction to them
- how they compare to other people i have typed

i don't force typings. if i can't get readings on someone then i accept that i don't know their type for the time being. sometimes people strongly come across as a certain type to me even when i wasn't necessarily trying to type them.

no typings are set in stone for me - i'll most likely never be 100% sure of someone's type and don't care to be. my typings are always subject to change.

i use the 2-subtype system when i can recognize them. a lot of times i can determine someone's type but they may not come across as a certain subtype so i simply don't give them one. i don't find it extremely important to assign subtypes.

regarding other people's opinions: other people's typings (or the person's own self-typing, if available) can give me some kind of a starting point to work with, though in the end i mostly rely on my own understanding of things to type, and to determine whether i agree with someone else's analysis or typing. if there is a consensus on someone's type, and i happen to have an unpopular opinion that i'm reasonably convinced of, that doesn't really affect my own typing much. i just think everyone else is wrong, until something convinces me otherwise.

also sometimes someone else's thoughts/analyses on someone's type, or socionics in general, may resonate with me; i find them very perceptive and i use them to improve my own understanding; and others' i just don't find that impressive or insightful and i find them easy to dismiss. i'm not sure yet exactly what causes this difference in my reactions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mattie

Mind giving some examples on what these sort of trends are? Are there some types of trends that are more influential on your typing than others? And what are the differences between the MBTI types and Socionics types, that you've noticed, in practice? Do ENTPs tend to be NeTi, etc?

---

When I started with MBTI I didnt type people according to it. So this having started with socionics, I found myself typing based on functions right away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mattie

Mind explaining this in a little more detail? I'm unfamiliar with what you're talking about.

---

It is similar to what Jarno said: in my mind (mind actually isn't the right word, but I don't know a better one) I have 'knowledge' on various types, and I type someone else by means of the 'feelings' (again: for lack of a better word) they invoke in me. So unlike Jarno, it's not how they look or behave, it's the gut response they invoke in me. This response almost always involves a value judgment of some kind, but it is not something rational (in the non-socionc sense) or cognitive.

ETA: it's not just what feelings other people invoke in me, but also my response to it in terms of action/non-action.

Transference - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Azeroffs

When I try to apply socionics, I try to keep in mind what socionics is. (information metabolism; essentially, what people are aware of and focus on.) I then look for anything which might signify key aspects of an element. What does this person focus on? How do their thoughts reflect their focus? How do their actions reflect their focus? I try to get into people's motivations and thoughts and derive where those motivations might have come from. A lot of the time it's unclear as a single action could the result of many different motivations, and motivation from many different awarenesses. I keep in mind that getting into people's heads is not easy, and often impossible unless they're willing to bring you in. I rely on my ability interpret the reasoning of things and people's vibes, but it's a constant battle of building up and then breaking down the conclusions I come to. Over time I've begun to realize the impracticality of trying to do quick typings, and I only give typings weight in situations where I'm able to get really close to a person and be sure I know them at a deep level.

Really the only thing of practical use I get out of socionics on a daily bases is the realization that people just have different ways of thinking about things and a way to try to rationalize it. I might assign a type or traits of a type to a person in order to understand where their coming from and adjust my perspective in order reach a compromise in situations of misunderstanding or general disagreement. But, often these traits I assign to the person are temporary in order to get through the misunderstanding. Assigning a permanent type to someone takes a long time and generally just doesn't happen as it's too impractical to come to any finalized sense of certainty that I have figured out their true type. There are a number who I will give provisional types to, but they're all very subject to change, and I really don't give any weight to the typing making it essentially pointless.

---

Freaking excellent :thumbsup:. To expect anything more than the bold is a waste of effort. The study of human relationships and information metabolism is an always changing study.

I would say I have found it most useful to just keep a basic easily adaptive model in mind for predicting behavior and motivation where I don't go overboard on trying to apply complex logistical systems that attempt to explain everything by putting people into static types. It will never work; it is just not worth the effort.

That said, in the short immediate term, I mostly look for situations where people are displaying leadingFunction-seekingFunction dynamics, as well as where people are utilizing their demonstrative function. In the long term, I look for inter-type relations and PoLR; and if that checks out, then I decide on leading and creative functions. That has been most reliable and rewarding for me in understanding and working with other people because these things tend to be somewhat variable in the short-terms among many people, depending on the situation. Of course, at other times, and usually in the long term, if the inter-type relations and PoLR are there, then I apply an overall type as most efficient in understanding. But basically, the more complex the motivations, the hazier everything becomes so I prefer to keep things situational (even when I have typed them) rather than static, unless the static has been shown to be quite probable. A static type for me would imply that the PoLR of the person typed has been mostly show to be stereotypical or extreme and that the inter-type relations are there to back them up, showing a clear particular leading and creative functional orientation.

I somehow forgot about this thread lol I must have read it before leaving for somewhere and never saw new replies, sorry for disappearing :oops:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skeptic

I'm not trying to objectively type, but get as close as I can. The fundamentals of types and functions I interpret as what is written on wikisocion; that :Se: is force, power, territory, Fe is focus on people, relationships and emotional atmosphere, etc. When I say simplify people's actions I mean getting to the origin of the action; why did they do this? What purpose did it serve for them? When you reduce their actions they more closely resemble the basic functions.

---

I was more wanting to understand what you meant by the term rather than question your intentions. I agree with the premise of wanting to find out how to objectively type as possible, and I can't really argue against your method. It's not exactly how I came to finding what is "objective," I also am curious to know how confident you are at guessing at peoples' intentions and motives, as that's something I don't feel comfortable doing because I can see people going so many different ways... Reminds me of another thread, and it seemed to be a :Ne: vs :Ni: difference, which I can understand. I don't think I personally would have came to either method you described in your example, I find behaviors and actions to be a hint but not good enough evidence. For me it's teasing out a person's thought processes and see the how and why they came to a reasoning or observation. My poor best friend is subject to many different strange questions as I like to understand how different her thought process is from mine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skeptic

Your argument assumes that we need to use a certain IE in order to see that IE. I have always thought that you can see the same :Fe: through :Te: and also through :Ti:. Just because we're using different functions to interpret another doesn't mean our judgement is inherently wrong or biased.

---

I didn't mean it that way, I meant that you always have the lens of certain IMEs on. So if you're :Ni:-leading, you're naturally going to see things existing in :Ni: context before you go about identifying certain behavior, especially when something catches you off guard. I don't think you have to be a certain type to conceptualize the type's process (in a basic abstract sense, of course). So I don't think it's impossible, but I think you have to go through an extra step, you have to realize that from the beginning, you've been building your understanding through your type... I only brought it up because I personally felt the method you described would fall prey to that, but I can't say that my method escapes such pitfalls either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashton

I think it's easy to recognize non-valued functions through the absence of valued functions. That is, :Fe:/:Ti: most often comes across to me as something like "not-:Fi:/:Te:". I also find it useful to treat functions in pairs like this… i.e. if someone seems :Si: valuing, they should necessarily show signs of :Ne:-valuing as well if this is true. It's a simple measure that can help double-check a person's type.

---

I've heard this from a couple of other people, but I can't seem to do this. I always spot the existence of something rather than the nonexistence. And I tend to piece things together IME by IME.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashton

I also disagree with the idea that you need to 'know the person well' in order to type them. Typing is not that deep.

---

To add onto this, sometimes knowing a person too well can be a hindrance. I think knowing people well is needed by Skeptic's typing method, because they have to understand a person's motivations as connected to IMEs. I would say I don't need to know the person well because I have an idea how to type someone by what they are actively doing without needing to know (a large amount) of their thoughts that they don't express.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by glamourama

however if this was based on a relatively small amount of information i might not consider the typing to be that strong. but if i gather more and more information about a person that turns out to be consistent with the typing, it would only reinforce it. if the new information seems to conflict with my previous conclusion i may drop the typing and reconsider - whether it's the typing or my own understanding of things. generally, everything has to fit or it's hard for me to accept a clear typing. often i have someone's type narrowed down to a few options.

[...]

i don't force typings. if i can't get readings on someone then i accept that i don't know their type for the time being. sometimes people strongly come across as a certain type to me even when i wasn't necessarily trying to type them.

no typings are set in stone for me - i'll most likely never be 100% sure of someone's type and don't care to be. my typings are always subject to change.

---

I'm generally like this as well, I'll have a "working" type that I try to have the person "wear", and they wear it until something comes to contradict it, and then I'll switch the type. I think because I don't talk about Socionics too often offline, I never have a person's type as 100% solid, and don't feel pressured to report types.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by glamourama

regarding other people's opinions: other people's typings (or the person's own self-typing, if available) can give me some kind of a starting point to work with, though in the end i mostly rely on my own understanding of things to type, and to determine whether i agree with someone else's analysis or typing. if there is a consensus on someone's type, and i happen to have an unpopular opinion that i'm reasonably convinced of, that doesn't really affect my own typing much. i just think everyone else is wrong, until something convinces me otherwise.

also sometimes someone else's thoughts/analyses on someone's type, or socionics in general, may resonate with me; i find them very perceptive and i use them to improve my own understanding; and others' i just don't find that impressive or insightful and i find them easy to dismiss. i'm not sure yet exactly what causes this difference in my reactions.

---

I'm pretty much the same way, but my opinion of this person and how they are in multiple realms greatly affects how I deal with information coming from them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by consentingadult

It is similar to what Jarno said: in my mind (mind actually isn't the right word, but I don't know a better one) I have 'knowledge' on various types, and I type someone else by means of the 'feelings' (again: for lack of a better word) they invoke in me. So unlike Jarno, it's not how they look or behave, it's the gut response they invoke in me. This response almost always involves a value judgment of some kind, but it is not something rational (in the non-socionc sense) or cognitive.

---

I see, the "database" method is rather unintuitive for me, as I see too many nuances with every individual to really have a chunk of them in a category and have them as models. I always start with a gut feeling, like you, but I never end on it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divided

I would say I have found it most useful to just keep a basic easily adaptive model in mind for predicting behavior and motivation where I don't go overboard on trying to apply complex logistical systems that attempt to explain everything by putting people into static types. It will never work; it is just not worth the effort.

---

I'm starting to find that I don't really have a model at all... Just a whole bunch of terms with definitions and combinations that I check against what I've observed. I think if I was (for some reason) had no lead about someone and I couldn't get a gut vibe to guide me initially, I would just through every IA and function combination at them until I see a pattern or get a lead.

Removed at User Request

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mattie

I would say I benefited by understanding that certain things people said (like my best friend) weren't being rude, malicious, or intentionally difficult, and I apply Socionics to discern this. I also use it to adjust how I explain things as well, and to anticipate certain issues and prepare for them.

---

That's how I would like to be able to use socionics and other personality theories.

Going along with this thread's theme, I was hoping to jump-start more of an active interest in maintaining the wiki we have, at least creating pages that outline our view on how we approach Socionics; this will not only help us think critically of our own methods, but also give us the opportunity to be exposed to others' ideas that might not be concisely presented here on the forum. I have my methodology and opinions more explicitly here: User:Mattie - Wikisocion

Okay. So, here's how I type.

I sort of don't think about socionics for a person until they do something that sparks a possible typing in my mind. What sorts of things spark typings? Well, it could be that I notice them dominating the atmosphere or flitting around the room in a very Fe way. Or it could be that I notice them in a relationship and think, "hm, could they be duals?" Or it could be that I see them sort of... instinctively or naturally standing up and taking charge of a situation and I think "Hm, possible Se ego?" Or maybe they do something that makes me think of a specific quadra. Regardless, that's how I do my initial typing.

So once I have this initial vague typing, I start looking for evidence for and against. Probably the first test is that I look at intertype relationships and try to type people around them. Sometimes (and I should do this more often, 'cause it's a potentially great method), I try other types on them and see how well the models of the other type fits with their behavior (a note on behavior later, maybe). One of my best tests is to alter my behavior to suit whatever type I think the person is. For instance, if I suspect that they're an Fi-valuer rather than an Fe-valuer, I try to tone down the Fe, not emphasize the facial expressions so much (when I first encounter someone, one of my first instincts is to really turn on the juice Fe-wise, 'cause I find that many people are receptive to that. Could also have something to do with having a Ti-leading father. Shrug.) And I almost always have my Se-Si sort of on a slider from intense motion Se to calm homeostatic Si (Se is as interested in causing change, i.e., disrupting homeostasis, as Si is in preventing excessive change, i.e., maintaining homeostasis. I think Se/Ni, especially beta, could be renamed "A New Homeostasis," a quest for a balance that is essentially unreachable). So anyway, I try to adjust my behavior to what I think may be the person's type, and if they respond favorably, that's good evidence for whatever socionics thing (e.g., preferred feeling function, quadra) I'm testing for at the moment.

I do ultimately try to base my typings on how people actually behave in the world interacting with other people. Of course habitual behaviors are emphasized over one-time things, and alternative socionics "explanations" for certain behaviors do have to be considered. But ultimately, I want to base my decision as to what type to label a person in my head (since that's going to affect my behavior towards them in many cases) on how the person actually acts. And I don't think it's at all bad or inaccurate typing to focus initially on behavior. If the person is a naturally take charge person, if they shine in situations where they can sort of take over and drive the ship, and furthermore, if they're not timid about it (or don't show any timidity anyway), Se-ego is a good initial guess. You do have to go back and look at the evidence. If they're like this, but they're getting along fantastically with every alpha and delta you know, and pretty poorly with all the gammas and betas you know, then it's time to seriously consider a different typing. But as long as you're weighing the available evidence, and always going back to say "how well does this model (socionics) fit reality (the person's behavior)?" then you should be fine, in my opinion.

I do want to emphasize that no action constrains type. There's not any one action that can make me absolutely rule out a type for a person. But there are actions that make me require very strong evidence to counterbalance them. For instance, if a person is constantly focused on organizing things the best way, maximizing efficiency, always being annoyed at people who don't pay enough attention to detail, people who disrupt the well-oiled machine... then it's going to take them getting along really really well with some Beta STs and pretty poorly with some Delta STs for me to see them as IEI.

Also, I'm always open to questioning someone's type, even if after I've had it settled in my mind for a while. For instance, there's a person I've long typed as IEE-Fi. But I notice her getting along extremely well with an IEI and an LSI. And that's strange, right? To have a good relationship with your conflictor? So now I'm considering an alpha type. On the other hand, should, after analysis, IEE continue to be the most logical typing (as I suspect it is; she is very much an Fi-valuer, and I don't really notice any Se from her), then I'm going to have to update my view of intertype relations, and perhaps spend some time thinking about this particular set of relations, specifically the relationship between her and the LSI (whose type I should also question, but you know, if he turns out to be LSI too), to try to figure out what it is about this conflict relation that makes it comparatively easy to deal with.


EDIT: Also, Ashton, something of a semantics question: who says that behavior is what and not how? Although I do think that "what" can be useful in typing as well, and also that the while the predictive accuracy of "what" is lower than "how," the power of an accurate prediction about what a person will do in a given situation is much higher than a prediction about how. And there's not really a clear line between "what" and "how" is there? A specific enough "what" is the same as a "how" about a broader "what". Complicated enough?


EDIT 2: And again, since this is really sort of in my head: sure, socionics is a theory of cognition, but we don't have access to cognition. There is no way for one human being to know what is going on in another human being's head. It's hard enough (maybe impossible) to know what's going on in our own heads. So obviously we have to use something to deduce cognition. Since we don't have direct, experiential access to others' cognition, we have to make some guesses. Upon what basis do we make those guesses? Behavior. How a person acts in an environment in which he or she has to interact with one or more other persons. Maybe even reports of how they deal with themselves. But it comes down to some action, even if the action is speech, that the individual performs in a social environment, even if the "social environment" is only writing (which is solitary), because writing implies an audience, and is thereby transformed into a social environment. It must be something someone does directed outward, towards the world outside the self (even if it's only talking), that must be the basis for our inquiry into anything about them, from clinical psychology to socionics. In that sense, socionics must be concerned about behavior, because behavior is the only way to deduce cognition.

Now, I know some things you might not consider "behavior" in a colloquial sense, e.g., sitting on a therapist's couch and answering questions. But especially given that we don't usually have the opportunity to interview people about how they think for the sake of determining their type, it's all the more important to realize that some sort of behavior is the window through which we must look (darkly) to see into cognition, in at least 90% of cases.

My typing methodology.

I go with my gut then I test it.

If I don't have a idea of the type, I investigate until I do, then I test it.

Hi everyone,

Reading through these forums it's obvious that typing people is a big part of the socionics community. What I have also noticed is people approach it very differently and come to some vastly different conclusions.

So this is how I type people...

• First step get a vibe of their quadra
  
  Alpha=easy going social types, Beta= passionate social types Delta= Easy going serious types, Gamma=Passionate serious types. (This is very rough, my vibe is actually a bit more detailed but it wasn't translating well to text.)

• If it isn't obvious consider their quadra more closely
  
  The quadra's are all very different from one another so I find it is a good place to start, as I only need to consider a small subset of socionics theory. As I tend to type people based on my social interaction with them I consider the following things.
  
  • Do they prefer large groups or small groups? (can be misleading)
  • Do they go with the flow of the group or do they try to steer the group?
  • Are the often animated/passionate?
  • Are they competitive?
  • Do they have strong opinions about people? If so are they likely to express these opinions?
  • Do they prefer practical discussions or "fun" discussions?
    etc...(there's more I was getting bored)

• If I know them well enough I would next choose their romance type.
• Once I have decided on a quadra I decide within the context of their quadra are they introverted or extroverted.
• If I couldn't figured out their romance type I will decide if they are more ethical or logical.
• This should leave me with 1 type.
• Lastly I consider if the social roles and cognitive function placement fit.
  
  If yes it should be a puzzle piece moment like "yes they are defiantly this type". If it's a maybe I would place a tentative type and observe them bit more or consider close alternatives. If it's no I will revise the previous steps and consider where I may of made an incorrect assumption or observation.

I find this to be a very efficient method and easy as the information on quadra's focuses a lot on group behavior which is the context In which I do most of my typing. It is quite a quick process of elimination. In terms of accuracy I found I could type all of my close friends and I could type about 40% of my acquaintances/friends who I didn't have a 1on1 relationship with while at least getting as far as quadras on the rest.

I only consider relationships after I've decided on a type and I will not type a person based on a relationship (either to me or between people i'm typing). I will also try not to give types value, IMO all types are equal.

So how do other people type and do you feel that method/ability in typing could be related to type?
I feel the above is a very Te method very efficient without having to use detail unless i'm not getting that puzzle piece moment.

Holy crap, I really like the descriptions you have of the quadras :D

As for me, I go for what sticks out the most - can I spot an axis of Perceiving functions (Judicious/Decisive Reinin)? Judging functions (Merry/Serious Reinin)? Democratic or Aristocratic? Temperament (getting halfway there on this one is good too)?

I'll nail down what I can nail down, nail down a few things I can't nail down, and remember which is which, so that if I need to change a thing, I'll know what to change...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by woofwoofl

Holy crap, I really like the descriptions you have of the quadras :D

As for me, I go for what sticks out the most - can I spot an axis of Perceiving functions (Judicious/Decisive Reinin)? Judging functions (Merry/Serious Reinin)? Democratic or Aristocratic? Temperament (getting halfway there on this one is good too)?

I'll nail down what I can nail down, nail down a few things I can't nail down, and remember which is which, so that if I need to change a thing, I'll know what to change...

---

Yeah the quadra Dichotomies are good and I use them in my "vibe" thinking.
I'm relatively comfortable with the expanded quadra explanations so I tend to check off my questions quite quickly in my head.

I have trouble typing with Democratic/Aristocratic axis as i'm not really comfortable with how it visibly manifests itself in peoples behavior, beyond putting people in groups vs judging everyone individually that is.

Temperaments are good but I haven't looked into going beyond Ix vs Ex and I wouldn't necessarily trust the result if I was able to.

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moredhel

Yeah the quadra Dichotomies are good and I use them in my "vibe" thinking.
I'm relatively comfortable with the expanded quadra explanations so I tend to check off my questions quite quickly in my head.

I have trouble typing with Democratic/Aristocratic axis as i'm not really comfortable with how it visibly manifests itself in peoples behavior, beyond putting people in groups vs judging everyone individually that is.

Temperaments are good but I haven't looked into going beyond Ix vs Ex and I wouldn't necessarily trust the result if I was able to.

---

What I look for is if a person shows heavy signs of grouping people together mentally, and basing things off of that (Aristocratic), or if a person just sees a lot of individuals more or less (Democratic).

This one sticks out like all hell to me - there's a dude I know who I nailed down as "Irrational Aristocratic Extratim", and it took me ages to get him as a Ti-SLE; I couldn't tell much with the P functions at first, he seemed to exhibit more :Ne: than I did, but that doesn't exactly say very much :lol:

I'm currently on a Rational Aristocratic Extratim who I'm pretty sure is an Fe-EIE; I'll nail it down right now for him actually, he may give off Delta vibes but our Ts don't match at all, and he was blowing :Fe: all over the place... his whole grouping of "women" as some sort of separate, alien species bewildered me and grossed me out, especially due to the frequency of it, and how much weight he placed on it...

And hell, I almost forgot until Ashton brought it up - I see Positivist/Negativist a hell of a lot too! Lots of the time, it'll be the very first one that I find; lots of those times, it'll be the only one that I find...

I use temperament and traits I know are peculiar to particular types, like the SLE's piercing gaze of judgement, or an IEEs enthusiasm about "looking behind" people.

Key words and themes are another big thing. I really love http://www.socionics.us/works/semantics.shtml for that, even though some of the vocab seems only applicable to Russian (e.g. most western Si dominants don't use plant and animal analogies so much). Ne dominants love to talk about "interesting" and often present the idea that they can see something hidden underneath the surface of people or ideas ("seems like <not immediately obvious potential>), Fe dominants are very warm and personable, etc.

Role function through interview is another good method. Asking people for five key words about themselves usually yields one adjective stereotypically associated with their Role function. ESEs often describe themselves as efficient, Ti dominants as friendly or polite, etc.

Like you, I think Quadra is a good one. What's of interest to me is that, even though we're both "Splat!" thinkers due to a dialectical-algorithmic thinking form, you don't use quite the same empirical Splats! as I do, instead opting for a logical approach. This could be F/T in action, or it could be experience.

The member who I inherited most of my typing style from is thehotelambush, and AFAIA he uses basically the same approach of "wait and see for something peculiar to a given type".

Woof, I think the empirical approach of "That person just did something that every other person of that type does!" is the least headache-inducing typing method for dumbass SFs like us :lol:

Filatova's photos and the socionics.us gallery are both good, though the former has far less mistyped people.

Quadra values and IM placement analysis, temperament, DCNH subtype. I pointedly ignore type commonality as a criterion (*looks at Cat King*), as it is ripe ground for fallacious typings; given that the immense variability inherent to human personality (as well as lesser influences, such as the unconscious pull of the id block) means not all people of the same type are gonna act the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashton

Some shit I wrote up a long time ago

---

Your method seems quite thorough. I'm not a fan of VI personally but I accept someone skilled in it could get quite accurate. That aside its maybe a little on the analytical side for typing on the fly. Is there a method you use when observing behavior?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aleksei

Quadra values and IM placement analysis, temperament, DCNH subtype. I pointedly ignore type commonality as a criterion (*looks at Cat King*), as it is ripe ground for fallacious typings; given that the immense variability inherent to human personality (as well as lesser influences, such as the unconscious pull of the id block) means not all people of the same type are gonna act the same.

---

You consider DCNH subtype in your initial typing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cat King Cole

Woof, I think the empirical approach of "That person just did something that every other person of that type does!" is the least headache-inducing typing method for dumbass SFs like us :lol:
Filatova's photos and the socionics.us gallery are both good, though the former has far less mistyped people.

---

It's not a bad starting point providing you don't place too much weight on it, in typing I find everything needs to fit into place. Just tonight I finally had that nice confirmation moment on my friends type (ESI), I typed him that weeks ago but I was only sure tonight because of his ignoring function of all things. Basically one of the things I've noticed about him and he noticed about himself is that he doesn't like socialising (Fe style) yet he does it effortlessly when he has to.

I think the type quirks will be a bigger benefit to me when I know more people of each type in order to pick up their quirks ;). So far I just know SEI's are overly fond of bath robes...and sleep.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moredhel

You consider DCNH subtype in your initial typing?

---

Yup, but secondary to IM analysis. It's exceedingly rare for DCNH to alter my impression of a person's core type.

Functions. All of the extra fluff seems to feed my biases and makes the typing process unnecessarily tedious as you attempt to fit their human characteristics into all these different values and dichotomies.

But you really can't type based on functions given the current state of function descriptions. They're horrible and tainted with the bias of their authors, each one containing a different set of emotionally charged adjectives to describe a type/function, and their tendency towards analogy and example show how weak their theoretical foundation really is. So what I've done is reject them outright and recreate them using the basic concepts of introversion/extroversion =subjectivity-internal/objectivity-external applied to logic/ethics/sensing/intuition. Typing has not necessarily become easier, but it has become more valid imo.

Typing = look at the person, not at the information.

My method:


VI -because this is a static impression and I'm a static valuer/type, this is very easy for me to do whereas you would probably need to watch and observe a person's actions for a while in order to gather all the intel on them LOL

Dichotomies -because it can be observed with written language and values that the person expresses; it's easy to spot who is a positivist and negativist.

http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p...le=Dichotomies

Functional analysis -here I look at which functions are in which position in the person's psychic block; most is using Jung's method of typing.

Relationship observation -Here I observe who they commonly interact with from the people who's types I am certain of and who they misunderstand, who they ignore, who they are attracted and repulsed by. I am an Fi type, so this is easy for me to do and because it is a static image. I also look at the person's mood here. Si types, especially ISTp tend to make value judgement based on who they favor or not and on top of that they can be very reactive in an irrational shortly thought out way so they are easy to spot.

Quadra Values -certain expressed language and style is particular to each quadra and members share those values

Temperament -

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by octopuslove

Hi supposed conflictor! :D My typing method is pretty much identical to yours, interesting...

---

lol hello conflictor. I actually don't get along too badly with IEI's accept when I get left alone in a room with one, then even the crickets get embarrassed at the awkward attempts at conversation.

BTW I like your method :).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maritsa33

Dichotomies -because it can be observed with written language and values that the person expresses; it's easy to spot who is a positivist and negativist.

---

This is the only axis I had a problem with in my own typing. While I do display negativist qualities at work because everything is so woefully inefficient (public sector for you), I'm generally quite optimistic in life and in my interactions with other people. I can see why my type is negativist as it's present in my thinking but more often than not I don't come across that way.
I'm also a bit wary as the only grouping of this axis in the small groups is romance types yet nothing in the explanations relates the groups to this axis.

That said, it is an easy one to observe but use with caution :).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moredhel

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by octopuslove

Hi supposed conflictor! :D My typing method is pretty much identical to yours, interesting...

---

lol hello conflictor. I actually don't get along too badly with IEI's accept when I get left alone in a room with one, then even the crickets get embarrassed at the awkward attempts at conversation.

BTW I like your method :).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maritsa33

Dichotomies -because it can be observed with written language and values that the person expresses; it's easy to spot who is a positivist and negativist.

---

This is the only axis I had a problem with in my own typing. While I do display negativist qualities at work because everything is so woefully inefficient (public sector for you), I'm generally quite optimistic in life and in my interactions with other people. I can see why my type is negativist as it's present in my thinking but more often than not I don't come across that way.
I'm also a bit wary as the only grouping of this axis in the small groups is romance types yet nothing in the explanations relates the groups to this axis.

That said, it is an easy one to observe but use with caution :).

---

Being optimistic in life doesn't have anything to do with that dichotomy. It's in how you see things. For example and a very easy contrast is one between my boyfriend and I

He says: We only have an hour.

I say: We have a whole hour.

In the above, you might observe that I see the potential and expense of time in a positive regard, while his Ni PoLR acts out in how worried/pressured/stressed/tense and rushed he becomes at observing it's limited movement...limit is confining and causes one to be negativist, while I see no limit, it's expansive and anything can happen; I'm ready for twists and turns and they don't bother me. He's likely to see the constraint and prepare for things...hence planning. I will post an interesting link to a book I've been reading lately which touches on the importance of both of these types in the Delta Lounge today or tomorrow.

Are you the type of an LSE who is typically early or late? :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maritsa33

Being optimistic in life doesn't have anything to do with that dichotomy. It's in how you see things. For example and a very easy contrast is one between my boyfriend and I

He says: We only have an hour.

I say: We have a whole hour.

In the above, you might observe that I see the potential and expense of time in a positive regard, while his Ni PoLR acts out in how worried/pressured/stressed/tense and rushed he becomes at observing it's limited movement...limit is confining and causes one to be negativist, while I see no limit, it's expansive and anything can happen; I'm ready for twists and turns and they don't bother me. He's likely to see the constraint and prepare for things...hence planning. I will post an interesting link to a book I've been reading lately which touches on the importance of both of these types in the Delta Lounge today or tomorrow.

Are you the type of an LSE who is typically early or late? :)

---

Optimism was an efficient generalization. What I meant was I word things in a positivist way probably greater than half the time even though I tend to think in a "there's not enough time" negativist kind of way.
I attribute it to being quite laid back and optimistic and making a conscious effort not to stress other people out.
So while Negativist would be accurate for me I would be very surprised if someone could accurately type me using that axis.

As far as my timing i'm the kind of LSE who's late to places I don't want to be (work) and early to places I'm looking forward to (birthdays), though I've had to teach myself the concept of fashionably late as I was always arriving well before everyone else :8*. I'm also tend to be late when getting there on time requires getting up early ;).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moredhel

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maritsa33

Being optimistic in life doesn't have anything to do with that dichotomy. It's in how you see things. For example and a very easy contrast is one between my boyfriend and I

He says: We only have an hour.

I say: We have a whole hour.

In the above, you might observe that I see the potential and expense of time in a positive regard, while his Ni PoLR acts out in how worried/pressured/stressed/tense and rushed he becomes at observing it's limited movement...limit is confining and causes one to be negativist, while I see no limit, it's expansive and anything can happen; I'm ready for twists and turns and they don't bother me. He's likely to see the constraint and prepare for things...hence planning. I will post an interesting link to a book I've been reading lately which touches on the importance of both of these types in the Delta Lounge today or tomorrow.

Are you the type of an LSE who is typically early or late? :)

---

Optimism was an efficient generalization. What I meant was I word things in a positivist way probably greater than half the time even though I tend to think in a "there's not enough time" negativist kind of way.
I attribute it to being quite laid back and optimistic and making a conscious effort not to stress other people out.
So while Negativist would be accurate for me I would be very surprised if someone could accurately type me using that axis.

As far as my timing i'm the kind of LSE who's late to places I don't want to be (work) and early to places I'm looking forward to (birthdays), though I've had to teach myself the concept of fashionably late as I was always arriving well before everyone else :8*. I'm also tend to be late when getting there on time requires getting up early ;).

---

Hee hee. :)

I go by functions and temperament most often, especially the former. VI has it's place but I wouldn't type someone based on it, it's more like a vague indication
IMHO if one is going by the classical understanding of the information element descriptions (Model A) it's the most helpful way of seeing a type outside of the personality stereotypes that may be associated with them and their quadras. They explain the basics of the subconscious without overtly boxing every tidbit in

Other methods such a Renin, subtypes, and many of the user created systems may or may not have their place in being realistically applicable, and I've dabbled in some with half-seriousness, but I feel all in all that they're far too categorical and :Ti: for me to latch on to so I don't place a lot of confidence in them.
They, essentially, are meant to explain humanity into precise, systematic, categories that are meant to label the complexities in humans that are too complex to be labeled

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moredhel

I think the type quirks will be a bigger benefit to me when I know more people of each type in order to pick up their quirks ;). So far I just know SEI's are overly fond of bath robes...and sleep.

---

:oops: *hemhem*

The sort of things I refer to as "quirks" are more like the tendency XEIs have toward being kind of "on or off", since that's something unique to Fe creatives. They'll tend to always default back to an unexpressive state between moulding their faces like so much incredibly silly putty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marie84

I go by functions and temperament most often, especially the former. VI has it's place but I wouldn't type someone based on it, it's more like a vague indication
IMHO if one is going by the classical understanding of the information element descriptions (Model A) it's the most helpful way of seeing a type outside of the personality stereotypes that may be associated with them and their quadras. They explain the basics of the subconscious without overtly boxing every tidbit in

Other methods such a Renin, subtypes, and many of the user created systems may or may not have their place in being realistically applicable, and I've dabbled in some with half-seriousness, but I feel all in all that they're far too categorical and :Ti: for me to latch on to so I don't place a lot of confidence in them.
They, essentially, are meant to explain humanity into precise, systematic, categories that are meant to label the complexities in humans that are too complex to be labeled

---

I very much agree with you. I'm happy accepting that two people of the same type aren't going to be the same person, trying to explain this in more detail is just unnecessary in terms of practical socionics. I'm happy pointing to the environment and shrugging.

I like quadras for speed and process of elimination and the "potential" behavior descriptions for functions are nice if they all match.
But yes a bit of your own matching of functions to information elements can be where that confirmation moment comes from.

Matching functions to information elements as a starting point can lead me astray though as I find the quadra behavior to be more distinct than individual function placement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cat King Cole

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moredhel

I think the type quirks will be a bigger benefit to me when I know more people of each type in order to pick up their quirks ;). So far I just know SEI's are overly fond of bath robes...and sleep.

---

:oops: *hemhem*

---

Lol if it makes you feel better I was primarily referring to my ex girlfriend.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by octopuslove

Hi supposed conflictor! :D

---

Supposed being the operative...

Lots of different methods; they all get kind of jumbled in my head, though, when I try to utilize them to type RL people. I look for clues about...

Temperament

Club

Merry/Serious

Relationships where I am positive of at least one typing, to give me clues about the other person's possible type/quadrant.

Functions, particularly Bold functions as these are easier to notice. And then with further observation, try to place these functions into the Model where they seem to make the most sense.

VI. I only use this tool, however, to identify when someone I meet seems to resemble (in looks, words, voice, physical attitude) someone whom I have already confidently typed. And then, I only really allow myself to narrow it down to a Club; if I go any further in my VI attempts, I hardly take the typing seriously without other methods to back it up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moredhel

I very much agree with you. I'm happy accepting that two people of the same type aren't going to be the same person, trying to explain this in more detail is just unnecessary in terms of practical socionics. I'm happy pointing to the environment and shrugging.

I like quadras for speed and process of elimination and the "potential" behavior descriptions for functions are nice if they all match.
But yes a bit of your own matching of functions to information elements can be where that confirmation moment comes from.

Matching functions to information elements as a starting point can lead me astray though as I find the quadra behavior to be more distinct than individual function placement.

---

Yeah I think quadra typing works but unless there's a decent understanding on how the information elements work to create a quadra identity it can be misleading.
For instance, I think a lot of people here have an idea of the Beta quadra being exclusively about vulgarity, inhumanity and radicalism in general. While the IE's valued in Beta can manifest themselves to create these sorts of behaviors I don't think they should be used as a type of guideline for what Fe, Ni, Se, Ti valuing equates to.
The same could be said about the other 3 quadras

That's not to say that you apply quadra typings like this, but there are people who do

Quote:

---

I think a lot of people here have an idea of the Beta quadra being exclusively about vulgarity, inhumanity and radicalism in general

---

Lol yeah, I know a few betas, some of my best friends are ST-Beta and some of their best friends are IE-Betas's so I have a chance to contemplate their good points and how their valued functions work without being overly judgmental ;).

Generally I have an easier time of picking quadrants (almost without a doubt) based on social interaction. I don't think it's quite as reliable 1on1 or off a questionnaire where the same answers could fit types across quadra. I haven't had to do many of these but so far I agree information elements are the way to go :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moredhel

Quote:

---

I think a lot of people here have an idea of the Beta quadra being exclusively about vulgarity, inhumanity and radicalism in general

---

Lol yeah, I know a few betas, some of my best friends are ST-Beta and some of their best friends are IE-Betas's so I have a chance to contemplate their good points and how their valued functions work without being overly judgmental ;).

---

He is so secretly judgmental! Actually not even secretly :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hemoglobin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moredhel

Lol yeah, I know a few betas, some of my best friends are ST-Beta and some of their best friends are IE-Betas's so I have a chance to contemplate their good points and how their valued functions work without being overly judgmental ;).

---

He is so secretly judgmental! Actually not even secretly :D

---

I'm an Fi valuer :P i'm aloud to judge hehe but now my judgments don't affect my opinion of you guys ;)

.

Moredhel, when I don't use VI, then my method is similar to yours.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FDG

Moredhel, when I don't use VI, then my method is similar to yours.

---

:), I have to say VI gets a lot of attention on these forums I might look into it a little more. I presume it's got more to do with expressions, posture, gestures etc. than facial structure and physical stature?

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moredhel

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FDG

Moredhel, when I don't use VI, then my method is similar to yours.

---

:), I have to say VI gets a lot of attention on these forums I might look into it a little more. I presume it's got more to do with expressions, posture, gestures etc. than facial structure and physical stature?

---

Yes, definitely. Although I don't think you can create a manual for VI - it's something that is born out of getting to know a large number of people for each type.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moredhel

Hi everyone,

Reading through these forums it's obvious that typing people is a big part of the socionics community. What I have also noticed is people approach it very differently and come to some vastly different conclusions.

---

Yeah.

As you may already know....
A lot of people especially at first are ignorant of how much they know and don't know, and often have baggage or certain things that "they know are representative of a type' that are not actually. So it's a process of continuously challenging those assumptions.

I don't think there will ever be much uniformity in process (or even results), at least on this forum. There are too many variations of understanding and assertiveness about opinions, and I think it's one of the biggest hurdles to getting into things.

Quote:

---

So how do other people type and do you feel that method/ability in typing could be related to type?

---

How someone approaches socionics and typing people seems related to their ability to grasp other models in social sciences, and their ability (or experience) in weeding through various pieces of information, evidence or actual knowledge of a theory.

Different people will have shortcomings along those lines that are often based on their type. What people put faith in and why they put faith in that reasoning is often related to their type, in certain ways... in how they put a value on some things. Some very generalized examples: sometimes "F types" will base their feelings about a person based on a "feeling" they have about them, and trust their feelings about them, in regard to how they feel about certain types, more so than 'what socionics actually says'. That's obviously also possible for any person or type to do. Sometimes T types will over-focus on a piece of data and not understand how it actually relates to the person because they don't understand the person or their relationship to them very well.

things like that

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InkStrider

True. The question is, how could this be addressed? People use different 'type indicators' to gauge a person's sociotype, which is probably the root of typing discrepancies.

---

I have a few ideas. IMO the only real way is a more form of information analysis that does not rely on questionnaires and self-reporting but based on choices(information preference) analysis.

More akin to Google +1, Facebook Like and rating movies. I was engaged in the Netflix prize prior to doing socionics seriously and started studying socionics again to see if it could help my analytics, one of the most common methods and at the core of all analysis like this is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singula..._decomposition which generates 2^x categories of indicating and contraindicating values(significant choices will fall into one or the other category). Think of SVD as a categorization prior to a prediction.

Of course this could produce a type prediction, 2^x categories with choices that would indicate one type or a contratype(i.e the conflictor).

This is a common techniques in information analysis, and is used in many schools of application, any number of systems will generate 2^x categories for prediction. Including choosing what sort of advertising to display, whether or not something is a security threat or whether or not you would like a movie. I would like to do something like this for socionics, but this is the sort of thing that takes thousands upon thousands of hours of work to implement.

This isn't really anything that is related to this thread. So I will move it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by octo

I have also thought of a methodology for type prediction which would be wholly empirically constructed, but it would require some level of statistical analysis which I am incapable of :(. It's based on the construction of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, which was developed empirically due to issues where a questions designed to test for certain traits in practice elicited the wrong response (e.g. paranoid people were actually more like to answer "false" to the statement "I think most people would lie to get ahead" than a normal population). So it doesn't actually matter whether the statement is true or not, the only thing taken into account is what answer a specific group are more likely to put down.

Essentially it will be a questionnaire with lots (100-300) of seemingly arbitrary questions which don't appear to point to a specific type or dichotomy (Do you prefer red or blue? Do you consider yourself a good driver?) but are statistically correlated to a type (along the lines of Aquagraph's "everything is type related to some degree" thread).

The main advantage of this test is that it controls for confirmatory bias, which in my opinion is the main problem with current typing tests - if you have a reasonable grasp of the basics of socionics, you can easily guess the answers which would type you as whatever type you want to be. But with this test, the only way to "cheat" is if you know the statistical correlations of each random question to type. It would also control for exaggeration problems (e.g. IEIs responding to stereotype threat by answering "I am bloody awesome at sports thankyou very much! Intuitives can be good at sports too! I have trophies!" :lol:)

The obvious problem with this test is constructing it - you would need a large and diverse population of people who are reliably typed to fill out massive questionnaires, then sort through all the questions to find the ones that are actually statistically significant, and analysing the hell out of a lot of data. But the construction process would actually be quite interesting since you'll actually end up with definitive and quantitative answers to "Is It Type-Related?".

---

This propose methodology is similar to SVD analysis, except SVD analysis determines the statistically correlated choices(figures out what question/data is related and what it's related to) based on a working data set and a predicted result data set(which is known but not analyzed). It could take normalized data from any stream of information, writing, movie rating, +1 on a webpage or a like to a friend's status comment. It takes these seeming non-related events and uses it to generate a prediction on the kind of data that would later possibly be liked or +1 or written. This mechanism creates the correlations and then associate the correlations with a category and then makes a prediction based on that. I think the predictive mechanism may only be so accurate(but better then guessing and often highly accurate), but the association of the correlations with a category could produce a sociotype prediction.

How to tune this to determine sociotype is not something that's I'm sure of, it might also include too much NTR related information. It could be that only certain predictions can be looked at for type related data, like duration of close relationship with another person being analyzed, etc.

I think there should be more in the distinctions of archetype versus conditional behavior. But what may be more archetypal for one person, may be conditional behavior for another. This way socionics can attempt focus on what is more relevant for a person.

For instance, I've always been very introverted. I consider my self intrinsically introverted - archetypal really. But some other people won't necessarily feel they are extroverted or introverted intrinsically, might legitimately waver. And some might find that they pretty much have to live as an extrovert in everything they do - archetypal for them.

It would be kind of cool this way because then you can find statistical correlations to what types a person can or will be depending on the situation. It wouldn't throw out any of the theory either, but make it more broad in a more intellectually honest manner. I don't have any recommendations on how to do that at the moment, but I wanted to share this perspective at least.

When you want to figure out what someone's type is how do you go about doing it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JWC3

When you want to figure out what someone's type is how do you go about doing it?

---

As a matter of fact, I don't. There aren't many people in real life that I actually want to type just to see whether we're compatible. I mean those are fleeting and fragmentary to begin with as in passing - you see them once or maybe twice. I say 'blah', that person says 'blah' and it is over. No love lost.

People who stayed with me and vice versa, well, that's something else. I've been here for over 3 yrs, on this forum, and to be honest I didn't even think in terms of typology. I usually know whom I get along with and most importantly whom with not, so I might say those are in my quadra, the ones I get along with fine, of course.

Ye sure, I can type them but do not put much stock into it, I just enjoy it, the interaction. As for typing itself, I pay attention to what they say to each other. Things they do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JWC3

When you want to figure out what someone's type is how do you go about doing it?

---

When I did type, it was usually done as an after thought.
Preferably I interacted w the person, or came across them interacting with others. Over time, some things they do/say started showing up regularly in a variety of contexts. Over still more time it might happen enough times that it would suddenly link up in my mind as a good example of some portion of socionics hypothesis. What that portion is depends on what that part of the person that kept showing itself was. I usually didn't get a full blown type from this.

When it came to family and long-term friends, I typed by looking back over the years to see what may have consistently shown up. I would also talk with my friend/bro who was into socionics and who knew the people being typed. We'd share and compare thoughts.

When I seemed to regularly conflict or disagree with someone, I might spend some time trying to figure out what was at the heart of those conflicts/disagreements, and it might link up as an example of a conflict/disagreement that might occur between different portions of socionics hypothesis. As in other contexts, this rarely gave a full blown typing.

I see no problem with saying PeJi vs PiJe, or ExFx, or any other portional typing. I'd rather see this than quick judgments over misinterpretations (of person and/or of socionics portions).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anndelise

When I seemed to regularly conflict or disagree with someone, I might spend some time trying to figure out what was at the heart of those conflicts/disagreements, and it might link up as an example of a conflict/disagreement that might occur between different portions of socionics hypothesis. As in other contexts, this rarely gave a full blown typing.

---

You just blew my mind. I'm terribly bad at typing people from memory, I always need to be thinking about socionics while I'm interacting with them to get any sort of type understanding, but I can't believe I never thought to remember conflicts. Those are probably some of the more vivid memories I have and might make it incredibly easy for me to type my father.

Thanks, I really appreciate the insight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JWC3

You just blew my mind. I'm terribly bad at typing people from memory, I always need to be thinking about socionics while I'm interacting with them to get any sort of type understanding, but I can't believe I never thought to remember conflicts. Those are probably some of the more vivid memories I have and might make it incredibly easy for me to type my father.

Thanks, I really appreciate the insight.

---

Glad I said something useful. :)

I would suggest though to try to view the conflicts/disagreements as if from a third person perspective...as if watching a movie or two friends going at it. This helps to look at the conflict itself and not something as vague as 'conflictor relations'. It also removes any bias one may have regarding one's type. In this way, the conflct might support a self-typing, or it might open the mind up to a possible alternative typing. (but that could just be me not settling on a judgment call easily, heh)

I don' even think I'm fully aware of it when I do it but it usually starts with observing the person with their movements, posture, facial expression and comparing the sum of that to others I've previously observed. Then it goes to what they talk about and how they talk about whatever it is, what they respond favorably or unfavorably towards, what people they get along with and choose to spend time with, what makes them mad or incites criticism and how they critique.

It's really not a neat or complicated process. I figured out pretty quickly someone was Alpha irrational. The Ti/Fe valuing was obvious. He would point out errors in thought and statements due to their logical inconsistencies and make fun of the skewed logic by applying that logic to other scenarios and make the person who said something moderately stupid to look really dumb. He was very receptive to quirky but light feel good entertainment and creature comforts and would not tolerate anything overly dry or anything dealing with deep feelings, especially that of the negative sort. I have this guy down as ILE (after extensive exposure in different situations with various individuals) but I went between SEI and ILE for a while until I felt it was more obvious where his strengths lied and when I figured the extent of discomfort Fi caused him.

My relations with him were where I began to say little in anticipation of him finding fault with my illogical statements and my talk of likes and dislikes and personal relations being a source of offense (I was told in early stages of our relationship that he didn't care about my likes or dislikes after I thoughtlessly stated something that delved into that area and I saw similar rejection with some choice of entertainment of mine and with statements made from various ESIs and when we had Fi talk time which almost did not go very well).

Anyways, that's one example with someone who is more obviously intolerant of Fi/Te in particular versus being descriptive of an individual who is more inclined to be more accepting of non-valued IMs, if that makes sense. Typing became easier when I noticed types within a type that share more obvious similarities than other 'types in a type' that are of the same type, technically, but fall into some subtype (I'm not talking about rational or irrational subtypes but different categories altogether that are subjective to my own perceptions of individuals in context of typology).

I then didn't fall into bewilderment when observing ILE A and ILE B and wondering why they were displaying such different surface behavior but displaying acute understanding of one another's thought processes as if they were their own.

As an after thought, this shit really does sound crazy. Oh well.

I keep a hat with a little piece of paper for each type and subtype in it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedVillain

I keep a hat with a little piece of paper for each type and subtype in it.

---

I prefer a dartboard. Fewer parts to misplace or break.

I don't like to delve into typing too often, would be too tiring to do this all the time. maybe when something really jumps out at me.. then I will get motivated to try. I look for functions mostly, I don't yet have a general picture of every type, though I'm improving at that :P
I think I'm sensitive at noticing Fe vs Fi valuing and also Ti valuing but whether I'm correct would also depend on how clearly I have the definitions down

I don't go out and type people, but as I'm interacting with someone I might notice some aspect of their personality, whether it's that they're probably a type with a certain information element in the ego block, or maybe temperament, or whatever. Sometimes just that they seem like some particular type. But I feel no need to come to a conclusion on what type someone is. I'm fine with "Delta ST" or even something more vague than taht.

By Dichotomies.

Merry/Serious
Decisive/Judicious

Those are usually pretty easy to tell.

I generally go by overall impressions of how I understand each type. Overall affect is what I take in first, but if the opportunity arises I try to sink my teeth into the person's brain to draw out valued IEs. Knowing their enneatype and stacking helps a lot too, just to give what I'm observing a greater context outside of socionics.

Quote:

---

When you want to figure out what someone's type is how do you go about doing it?

---

Observation, observation, observation.

I need to come to a conclusion about the person's type. Then I can develop my approach or "match" them if they want me to. etc. I'm very good at making a decision/conclusion, but when I get indecisive, it's usually that I'm considering a big picture or something that needs to go into that picture before I make my conclusion. When I do make a conclusion, that's it; that's the conclusion and it's usually not easy for me to change my own judgment on something that I'm very confident about.

I'm bumping this ancient thread. Partially because I'm curious to see how/if people's typing methodologies have changed since I was here a lot, and partially because I re-read my last post and no one ever responded to it, but it's still a pretty good summary of how I like to type people, when/if I type people. The only changes are that I do it less than I used to, and I think maybe my understanding of how people interact with people of different quadras has changed somewhat. I think maybe I can see how relationships between people who aren't predicted to have great relationships socionics-wise can be good a little better these days.

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by glam

post

---

even though my post is 3 years old, i think i still pretty much approach typing the same way.

i like the Temperaments, Quadras and Clubs; each of these offers its own snapshot based intuitive perspective that is integrated into a composite intuition on a person's type. functions i have started putting less stock in over the years; they are more like phantoms of the theory (like particles in quantum mechanics) than real things that can be pointed at and shown, or even "seen" beyond what Ts, Qs and Cs can tell you.

now, that is just the first stage of the process. after you've intuitively decided on a typing or a partial typing (such as IxTp; which i strongly encourage) by this method, you need to find more demonstrable features of typing eligibility to be able to meaningfully contribute to a typing debate. intuition can be a guide to the process of finding things that can approximate (by which i expressly don't mean reach) the solidity of empirical proof, but as a mere "as offered" confession it is insufficient. the search should be for things of which both the "measurement" (i.e. whether it is the case) and the pertinence (i.e. what it means, in what way it is relevant) are not publicly disputed (much). but on a community wide level there should also be means of settling disputes on what matters and how facts pertaining to typings are established...

the second stage is where i (and by my estimation pretty much everyone) gets stuck, which is why i don't spend much time discussing typings anymore. the only way to really fix the process is to introduce an extensive academic environment complete with empirical testing and statistical correlation work being done, but the resources for that just aren't here, not to mention much of a motivation for it. and this assumes somewhat liberally that in the end it would be possible in the first place.

Merry/Serious is almost always easy to figure out based on the following question: Do they seem to have time to entertain my "nonsense", as it has been affectionately referred to. If they have Ti as valued and conscious, they do. Sometimes if they have Te ego they do as well. But if they don't they're most usually a serious type.

Temperment is relatively easy to figure out. As is Static/Dynamic. Sometimes educated guesses(adlibs) can lead to accurate end products after you get temperament.

The Essence of the quadras is easy to differentiate in my mind, so i'll use those on those typings where 3 of the 4 letters make sense.


But i never settle into concrete certainty for anything, because these are largely concepts and concepts are based on perception and not fact. What purpose does it serve to transmute the flexible concept into concete fact? <- Te Polr maybe

I dont think VI'ing features or visual appearance has any merit whatsoever, but i do think there's value in observing mannerisms and similarity in behavior.

I usually just focus on what I read and apply it on this forum - most keep to myself in my head (just to check whether it coincides with user self-typings or not), some spit out and this Socionics via Absurd. With a little practice you too, can be disco dancing with the best.

And facts do speak for themselves without interpretation - not unless one wants to interpret an event by twisting the facts to suit something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Absurd

I usually just focus on what I read and apply it on this forum - most keep to myself in my head (just to check whether it coincides with user self-typings or not), some spit out and this Socionics via Absurd. With a little practice you too, can be disco dancing with the best.

---

you should make a type list

I did. In my head. Anyway, have to drive, be back soonish (I think).

Temperaments, clubs and quadras are ok iff a person is a stereotypical example of that type. I find them useless for most typings.

information elements are ok, if using a more flexible understanding than the basic definitions (i.e. not the augusta, rixpatian kinds). That, and inter-type relationships, which is a powerful typing tool.

(I don't really care that much anymore though)

Ni: Reinin is magical

I thought Reinin was some kind of Ti people, at least from what I've seen (little). I can be wrong though. All in all, following lungs' post about science, it's funny Gamma NTs are "way more" scientific(?) actually swimming happily in a cell made especially for them. Jung and his clinical patients observations included...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Absurd

I thought Reinin was some kind of Ti people, at least from what I've seen (little). I can be wrong though.

---

Reinin is ILE, so you're right..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reinin book

In case of stirring relationships the things I sell my activator buys, and vice versa. We usually sell things pertaining to our second function. For example, a Don Quixote and a Hugo have stirring relationships. They usually 'sell' what the second function can offer regarding the third function, and they usually 'buy' what the first function can offer regarding the fourth function. This needs some clarifying. What does a Don Quixote sell? This type usually sells the way of understanding, the explanation of people’s relationships (this is exactly what I am doing now: I am, a Don Quixote, teaching you the way of socionics - a science which explains relationships between people).

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sssonyyy

Reinin is ILE, so you're right..

---

I just delight in being correct in being right, thanks.

4x4 grid is drawn to the ground, one square for each type, fenced and then you decapitate a chicken, throw it with divine guidance, see where it stops running while you chant yellow pages.

Hey hey!
So I'm just hoping that y'all could throw around some thoughts on how you detect types.
There's some types that I'm pretty good at recognizing, and others that I really don't know how to recognize...

Some people I meet and immediately feel a familiarity and know their type, and others boggle my mind!! :confused2:
I think I recognize the Beta types the easiest, so if you have tips on how to recognize any/all types of the other quadras
I'd love it! (but if you want to include Beta as well, that's cool - all things welcome)
Anything goes. Whether you recently figured out someone's type and want to talk about that
or just any general thoughts would be great.

*BTW I would prefer, though, that this would be based on in-person experience with people, rather than typing off text.


Thanks!!! :thumbsup: