Printable View
I find a combination of inter type relations and quadra values to be the most reliable way. I usually start with quadra values and develop a general idea of the type of a person and then adjust from their if the relationship seems to be off from what it should be. If I'm typing someone who I don't have contact with then I just use past experience.
Hello, haven't created many threads here yet as 90% of my activity has been in the shoutbox.
I do a ton of reading on my own from as many sources as possible to build an understanding of socionics, but have reached the point in the community where I notice my own interpretation conflicting with that of others - not to mention a high amount of conflict within the community itself when it comes to a consensus on any given user's type.
In this thread I'm looking for detailed descriptions and conscious methods that individuals here employ when typing others, specifically any ordered structure to their approach and what "tells" they seek or notice to identify individual elements by function in a typing subject. Note that I'm not looking for "vibes" or anything overly subjective or intangible. It's my belief that a scientific approach (and that is what I'm choosing to use on socionics, for better or worse; I can philosophize on my own) needs consistent structure made up of parts that are able to be - at least to some degree - measured and defined in such a way that others can observe and debate their legitimacy.
For example:
1. What function do you look for first in an individual?
1A. Why that function?
1B. How do you identify a specific element as that function (i.e. what defines it most and is observable about it)?
1C. What is your second choice when the first preference is unclear?
2. If not a function, what other quality do you look for first? Temperament? Quadra values? Other?
2A. Why that particular quality? Is it systematic in some way?
2B. How do you identify that quality (i.e. what defines it and is observable about it)?
3. What other steps, in actual order or order of ideal preference, do you engage in?
4. Optional: What do you believe is usually the most commonly observed behavior of each element as the Leading function?
Please note that I am purely looking for typing methods as far as the core theory. I don't necessarily need specifics on subtypes yet, nor am I presently interested in typing by way of photographs. I'm building a pattern out of any consensus I can find here.
I will give it a try. For what the heck, It is not the full way im going about it but it is the points that make the line.
So for Si leads there is usually this uniqeness about them, their expression with their face. There is sometimes this negative expression going full circle making it normal expression. Disguised could be it, can apply to Se leads. Ne leads have biggest eyes. It is like them want to look at every place at once but cant because of how reality is set out to be. Fi leads have this large story about everything. They have a deep understanding of feelings how they arise from the depth of an individual. Se leads think they are the shit but usually more quiet then they think they are.
So that is the fun way of typing but there is also this. You can identify Fe pretty quickly and then you can find that person also value Ti. When you have these puzzlebits done you can choose between 4 types and that is kind of easy.
1. Creative
1a. People use it to express their personality
1b. Simple indicators of overall motive
1c. The soup of perceived weaknesses in the individual
2. The most promising structure, which can be analyzed, but takes time to deconstruct, is the subconscious piecing together and filtering of various impressions without (as-yet) recognized external form. Since it is so detailed, using this structure requires significant time spent pruning possibilities and making sure statements accord with each other.
2a. It is systematic in the sense that detail tends to pour out if you open it in the right way.
2b. A sense of tension in the neck and mid-abdomen.
Leading functions will be much less obvious and the way to deduce them is getting the creative and reasoning about the two possibilities from the content of actions or thoughts.
You say you want a scientific approach. Then create an operationalization of your understanding of the constructs and go test. No need to post on forums for debate to do that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiver
1. Ego functions, preferably Leading function first.Quote:
1. What function do you look for first in an individual?
1A. Why that function?
1B. How do you identify a specific element as that function (i.e. what defines it most and is observable about it)?
1C. What is your second choice when the first preference is unclear?
1A. That should provide the most consistently observable trends of concretely defined categories extracted from communication analysis (categories of IEs themselves and categories of IEs in certain specific positions).
1B. By the usual definitions by the main socionics theory, taken at face value.
1C. The other Ego function
Don't really go for any of this much, only as a side note. In the case of temperaments, I do consider Creative subtype modifying the base temperament.Quote:
2. If not a function, what other quality do you look for first? Temperament? Quadra values? Other?
2A. Why that particular quality? Is it systematic in some way?
2B. How do you identify that quality (i.e. what defines it and is observable about it)?
All main steps:Quote:
3. What other steps, in actual order or order of ideal preference, do you engage in?
1. Find Leading function
2. Find another strong function (not the Ignoring)
3. Check for dual seeking function too if possible
4. Any side observations
I analyze communication, not behaviour so I'll pass on this one.Quote:
4. Optional: What do you believe is usually the most commonly observed behavior of each element as the Leading function?
Good luck...Quote:
Please note that I am purely looking for typing methods as far as the core theory. I don't necessarily need specifics on subtypes yet, nor am I presently interested in typing by way of photographs. I'm building a pattern out of any consensus I can find here.
"vibes" as intuitive impressions from nonverbal behavior give typing match up to 30% and have average 15-20%. So they are not "overly subjective". These matches are close to when people type by methods like interview and questionnaires.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiver
"vibes" is one of the 1st typing methods described in Socionics books and is used probably by everyone. There is nothing "special" to use intuition in typing where N function is just one of 4 functions of consciousness, but not esoteric thing.
> 1. What function do you look for first in an individual?
1A. Why that function?
As I have leading T, I generally start with T/F analysis. It's easier for me to feel and understand this difference in people.
> 1B. How do you identify a specific element as that function (i.e. what defines it most and is observable about it)?
F types are emotional, T types have more limited and lesser natural emotions and give impression of thinking. My analysis is like to think to description of which trait a man is closer, I watch and try to feel it.
> 1C. What is your second choice when the first preference is unclear?
When I analys T/F I may think about is it Fe or Fi, Fe or Fi valued if logic. To this moment I watched a man for some time, and have gotten also other thoughts simultaneously. About E/I, as it's close, and other.
> 2. If not a function, what other quality do you look for first? Temperament? Quadra values? Other?
Classical Socionics has no temperament analysis. It's DarkAngelFireWolf69's specific thing
> 3. What other steps, in actual order or order of ideal preference, do you engage in?
I may try to feel more details about the type, for example according to A model.
And I think is what I feel fits to IR I have with the human. The more "black" places I have and more contradictions, - the lesser I'm sure in the type.
Sometimes I may use what impressions people get from my types examples and analyse this by IR theory. They may say impressions from concrete types, may to sort 16 types by the degree of personal comfort, may to compare some types groups - which one they like more (Te/Fi or Ti/Fe types, for example).
> 4. Optional: What do you believe is usually the most commonly observed behavior of each element as the Leading function?
my beliefs are close to what you may read in books. nothing special
> I don't necessarily need specifics on subtypes
there are no subtypes in Socionics. there are some author's hypotheses without good basis
> typing by way of photographs
photos were never thought as serious typing way, except marginal adepts of physiognomy
but they have some nonverbal information and other behavior information, so may be used
> I'm building a pattern out of any consensus I can find here.
You'd better read books and then tried to type people near. You will not get much useful info by your questions.
I'm getting precisely the type of information I had intended - thank you for your replies.
Those percentages are, uh...something (i.e. garbage). I think I'll pass on those for now though.
First, don't look at stereotypes :)
I coined my method the Intelligent Design Method of typing.
Click below for more information:
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...09#post1123109
I also use the Open Borders Approach, another one I coined. I am speaking to two fundamentally different views of Socionics.
The Open Borders approach dissolves the Quadra Values mythology….”drains the swamp.” Socionics New Wave still recognizes Quadras but in the same way that England recognizes the royal family. We will call them King and Queen but they don’t have any actual power. Although there may be some values loosely associated with each quadra, there's absolutely no rational basis for treating Quadra Values as an axiomatic principle of Socionics. It's ludicrous to use it as starting point.
The Closed Borders view is the one that is held by pretty much every Socionics School of Thought except for Socionics New Wave. That is, the view – religiously held by some -- that there is such a thing as Quadra Values and that one can or should begin with quadra when typing. So in the classic methodology, first you type Quadra based on Quadra values, whatever that means, and then you narrow it down by one of four types, either through VI or one of the less objective, less serious methods of typing.
Consequently, the VI breakdown for each Socionics type laid down by Socionics New Wave is much better than the breakdown proferred by Socionics.Com. Even though both schools of thought recognize that VI is superior to all other methods of typing, pinterest.com/socionics's breakdown is not inhibited by a Closed Borders Approach. The Open/Closed Borders difference may not be the precise or only reason why the New Wave breakdown is better. However, I can affirmatively state that the New Wave breakdown would not have come out so great if it had been based in the more arbitrary Closed Borders Method.
My typing method is to post my thoughts so somebody can tell me I'm stupid or react negatively and then I hate the people that get likes for posting practical or popular thoughts.
atm Im trying to type as many people (irl) as possible just for the sake of it. I use simple I/E S/N T/F J/P dichotomies then contrast with how I feel about that person's ego, i.e. strong/valued/conscious.