you may to make IR analysis by yourself. it's not hardQuote:
Originally Posted by super mbti user
but without correct own type your analysis will not be correct too. while the main way for you to know correct own type is to give your video
Printable View
you may to make IR analysis by yourself. it's not hardQuote:
Originally Posted by super mbti user
but without correct own type your analysis will not be correct too. while the main way for you to know correct own type is to give your video
you made me watch 100 russian asmr videos for nothing Sol you're dead to meQuote:
Originally Posted by Sol
You did not do what was said.Quote:
Originally Posted by super mbti user
As your correct type stays unknown without video, there is no basis to think about bad result.
You even have not said your result in the format appropriate for analysis. Also if you did not follow all my recommendations, then you have no basis even to complain.
You may: 1) stay with bad thoughts without reasons like now, 2) make your video-interview and give results in adequate format, so all this could be analysed as was said in the beginning of the theme.
Anyway, you've gotten the possibility to better understand the types by using their quality examples. It's side effect of the method. :)
I'm still waiting for Myst's list!
If Myst's type is LSI indeed, it's hell annoying for her to use Ne-Fi based method. The good thing is - people of his type when do something they try to do it ok, what may make the results closer to the theory.Quote:
Originally Posted by pinoline
I suspect the criterion of good IR should be changed, as seems some people analyse the possibility of others to understand and express feelings as "friendly potential" - hence they set on top F types, despite they may to have F type themselves. I'm sure the examples are mostly correct. But how to use them - experimental part.
If those who made the test and were typed by video will offer the criterion by which they'd sorted my examples closer to IR theory (duals, semi-duals at top, super-ego, quasi-identity at bottom) - I'll think about the changes. At now I'm using as "model" my own psyche, - my duals EII are good in Fi - they give easily psychic comfort and friendly sympathy.
EII which made this test have placed at top all 4 F-N types, while own duals/semi-duals and S-Ts have placed close to bottom. In the discussion he said that F-N types he understands as better possible friends and thats why "friendly feelings" were higher to them. I don't understand at now how to make the criterion more universal for people of different types. I'm stuck in perception limits of own type.
I thought Myst is a woman? :/Quote:
Originally Posted by Sol
Sol, I don't think this test will ultimately tell someone who they are, just because of how they liked someone from the videos you sorted.
The videos of SEE for instance were too stereotypical, as soon as I saw them I thought " this is SEE right?!" and it was... I actually never met such SEEs though if not in internet meme lol. I think you picked all sort of people that YOU anyway found somewhat characteristic in how they are, but not all people from types are like that. They look different to other people... I even wonder if some of the people you stored in some groups actually belong there, like the second EII looked like a fish. I don't look like that. Choosing mostly girls who whisper is just as difficult to interpret, because you'll never meet someone talking like that really...
It is good to see how people are on a video, but even if I like someone I can't tell how good I'd do with them if I were there to talk to them. Would the person be a prick? Anser to my questions? Make fun of me etc? I can't know from these videos... so the typing stays as shallow as it seems. If you tour around the forum you'll see there are usually at least 4 different opinions on what type a person is. We do perceive people differently, and sometimes we defy models too.
I didn't place F N anywhere and I'm pretty sure to be EII. What makes you so sure to be LSE instead? Can you post a video so I can judge? ^^
seems soQuote:
Originally Posted by pinoline
> I don't think this test will ultimately tell someone who they are, just because of how they liked someone from the videos you sorted.
There are good IR and how people feel them. This effect is felt from nonverbal. The main problem is to find the criterion - how to describe in one phrase what all types like in duals, what is general for all types. Also that thing should be clearly and easily felt in people. I made the test as I perceive good IR, but this may to be not universally enough for the test. Psychic comfort, friendly sympathy, personal trust, inspiration in irl communication - I get this. But when EII have chosen F-N types at top the situation have become lesser clear.
> The videos of SEE for instance were too stereotypical, as soon as I saw them I thought " this is SEE right?!" and it was...
As these are correct examples, so it's easier to understand to what type they relate. I saw up to 50% of correct guesses of my types groups.
> Choosing mostly girls who whisper is just as difficoult to interpret
there is enough of nonverbal info even for typing. not just for reading one parameter of good IR
> even if I like someone I can't tell how good I'd do with them if I were there to talk to them.
you don't need to think such difficult. just read the feelings from nonverbal by the said criterion. your intuition should to work only
> I didn't place F N anywhere and I'm pretty sure to be EII
I'd look at your video with pleasure. People on forums assign to themselves incorrect types in ~50% of cases. I saw this a lot. Many ones change opinions after monthes or years. Without IR checking with people irl it's easy to make a mistake.
> What makes you so sure to be LSE instead? Can you post a video so I can judge?
for the last year I was asked this by 3 girls, at least :) plus one wanted photos
I think LSE as own type because other types fit to theory (including IR) a lot worse. I typed myself during the 1st year of studing the typology a long ago and never doubt in it then.
Anyway, video with significant chance would lead you to wrong version, as offline typing needs good qualification. I'm often suspected as LSI by communication on forums, while other wrong versions I meet lesser.
this is a farce, I tell you! A FARCE!Quote:
Originally Posted by Sol
Sol is an ESI, won't change my mind until video
In such case there would be only random results, but not with a system. :) Like when F-N types are chosen at top, or when a whole beta quadra there, or when identity/mirror types are often at 1st place. The test works, but needs improvement in the criterion.Quote:
Originally Posted by wasp
Thank you for the version. :) It's rare when people think me as F type. Another for my collection.Quote:
Originally Posted by pinoline
If you want to change your mind - just look at my EII examples, - these are woman I feel the most pleasure to deal with. If you'll type them as ENTJ, then you may think me ESI further.
no problem Sol, check this out http://cognitivetype.com/2017/05/27/tesi-raw-footage/ it's full of TeSi people I fell in love with instantly :]
(ESI are the best)
Colbert - N typeQuote:
Originally Posted by pinoline
Watson - ENTP
Tolkien - mb SLI
Barrymore - SEI
Adkins - SEI, IEI
Fey - IEE
:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sol
I didn't have time last weekend after all, this weekend looks better so far unless something comes up again :?
I'll respond to the rest too in a bit.
One more thing... as far as I understood, the original instructions say to look in terms of potential for romantic feelings, what does this last quoted sentence mean? I assume you were referring to the alternative method (friendly feelings) there with how it's not to be used at all? And btw what do you mean by the first part of the sentence?Quote:
So generally it has a link - you'll romantically like with more probability people with good IR, as they are more generally pleasant. But as on romantic feelings significantly affect body's traits, this was not supposed to be used.
I am :)Quote:
Originally Posted by pinoline
As criterion is said: "friendly sympathy and psychic comfort". It's about friends relations, not romantic ones which additionally have sexual interest. Romantic feelings are mentioned only for what sex to use for sorting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Myst
> I assume you were referring to the alternative method (friendly feelings) there
it's part of main and only method in my recommendations
> And btw what do you mean by the first part of the sentence?
If this about "But as on romantic feelings significantly affect body's traits, this was not supposed to be used."
I meant that body's traits have significant influence on romantic feelings. And as we need only impressions from psyche, hence romantic criterion can't be used for the sorting.
OK that was confusing the way you put it in OP: "Use examples only of other sex (which causes romantic passion)".Quote:
Originally Posted by Sol
I suggest you remove that part, "which causes romantic passion" and only emphasize the "friendly sympathy and psychic comfort" in place of it.
OK great now I see what you meant and what was making it so ambiguous.Quote:
> And btw what do you mean by the first part of the sentence?
If this about "But as on romantic feelings significantly affect body's traits, this was not supposed to be used."
I meant that body's traits have significant influence on romantic feelings. And as we need only impressions from psyche, hence romantic criterion can't be used for the sorting.
What to use as the _sorting_ criterion is said there clearly and unambiguously.Quote:
Originally Posted by Myst
Romantic feelings are mentioned _only_ about which _examples_ to use.
> I suggest you remove that part, "which causes romantic passion" and only emphasize the "friendly sympathy and psychic comfort" in place of it.
To take into account sexual orientation is important. I may make additional note to don't use romantic feelings for sorting, as seems some people got confused.
Fay mentioned physical attractiveness, probably she initially made similar mistake and maybe corrected later. Also a girl on socioforum seems did same.
> OK great now I see what you meant and what was making it so ambiguous.
The most ambiguous thing seems is how F-N types understand what is needed in the test. I need to ask several EII about which criterion they'd sorted T types of own quadra vs T types of opposite quadra. Yep, I plan to hang on a neck of several people in Internet with this question to check is the current criterion acceptable for them too.
: (Quote:
Originally Posted by Sol
: ((
:- ((
that's life. be strongQuote:
Originally Posted by pinoline
INFP seems better for you
could be, could beQuote:
Originally Posted by Sol
: (
ESI
LSE are terrible, upset you 2nd day. get SLE until there are someQuote:
Originally Posted by pinoline
stop insulting LSE, u ungrateful ESI, tskQuote:
Originally Posted by Sol
This happens unintentionally cause I'm not perfect. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by pinoline
It's nice to see u recognize urself at least ^__^Quote:
Originally Posted by Sol
Yes, I recognize myself as LSE. :) ~15 yearsQuote:
Originally Posted by pinoline
I'm sorry, the English in the first post is a bit broken so it's not very clear that that's the sorting criterion. Was not unambiguous to me at all. I find it better to ask when it's like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sol
Yeah, you could put it like you said it now, it was clearer that way to me at least.Quote:
> I suggest you remove that part, "which causes romantic passion" and only emphasize the "friendly sympathy and psychic comfort" in place of it.
To take into account sexual orientation is important. I may make additional note to don't use romantic feelings for sorting, as seems some people got confused.
Fay mentioned physical attractiveness, probably she initially made similar mistake and maybe corrected later. Also a girl on socioforum seems did same.
F/N generally is not very unambiguous stuff. :lol:Quote:
> OK great now I see what you meant and what was making it so ambiguous.
The most ambiguous thing seems is how F-N types understand what is needed in the test. I need to ask several EII about which criterion they'd sorted T types of own quadra vs T types of opposite quadra. Yep, I plan to hang on a neck of several people in Internet with this question to check is the current criterion acceptable for them too.
Then my Russian is broken too similarly, as I've mentioned same problem there. :) There was no language problem, as I used simple sentences. What is confirmed by that you have not offered better form of the text to say same, but offered to change the sense of text.Quote:
Originally Posted by Myst
It really is aimed at form (presentation) though. Anyway, it's good to have clarified the issue before I started watching the stuff. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Sol
For me as S type also sometimes is harder to understand "what is needed". I generally prefer to re-read and to copy what was said to me to get confirmation that I've understood correctly. Similarly, when I say something important I prefer to repeat this several times (sometimes in variations) to be sure the opponent have understood and remembered me correctly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Myst
IR test, so this test is only for IEEs?
IR is meant to stand for Intertype Relationships in this case rather than NeFi. Also, all types were chosen by Sol and this is his experiment, so it depends on how much you trust his typings.Quote:
Originally Posted by muhtempus
Also I need video-interview. As in other case the results will be useless, - I'll can't to understand did the test worked good or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by squark
> IR is meant to stand for Intertype Relationships in this case rather than NeFi.
This may be also thought as a play of words, as the test mostly uses Ne and Fi functions.
(Just note. Didn't forget this. I really want to get back to this asap.)
I think your video would be good to see. As you find Si as important thing in your life.Quote:
Originally Posted by Myst
For example, Se for me is just "be there", I'm not a fan of such stuff - I may dream something in that region, but it's not what I'd want to deal with in reality - like to play computer games VS kill real people at war.
If this wasn't clear in my post before, let me say I find the Se approach important too. I prefer to focus on Se in a conscious way while Si is in the background more as some extra grounding and to take care of dual's PoLR in an unobtrusive way :). Without discussing it too much. The original point was that it's quite a strong function and it will still have some output without focusing on it too much directly (again, especially useful for Si PoLR).Quote:
Originally Posted by Sol
Btw Se isn't just war, that's an extreme form of it lol, I don't want war in my country either, don't want that kind of chaos here.
The situation is I don't find my Se so meaningful in my interests or even better than Si, - what you report about 8th function. What I have fits to theory, while you have something strange and rises chance for other types.Quote:
Originally Posted by Myst
What I described actually fits the basic Socionics model.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sol
EDIT: to clarify, I never said Si was better than Se for me. Si is a stronger function than Se but not "better" for me in the sense of how much it's meaningful.
LSI > ILI > SEI > LII in order of attractiveness
My general impressions towards these:
01- Good, most of the people seemed sweet and likable.
02- Potentially negative, put me on edge and felt guarded towards them
03 Neutral, seemed ok-ish and that's about it
04 Good, seem like that people would make great buddies to hang out and work together on stuff with
05 Ok I suppose, wouldn't mind them as aquaintances
06 Neutral, people I'd just have casual relationships with and amusingly watch from a distance
07 Again Neutral, not much opinion either way towards them.
08 Fun if a bit potentially obnoxious, mostly good though
09 A bit too flightly and annoying for my taste but good though mostly
10 Ok put aren't really people I think I'd connect with very much
11 Somewhat guarded, not really people I see myself interacting with much but could get along if needed
12 Good/very good, seemed like fun and pleasant people
13 Good/ok, a bit talkative but still seemed pleasant
14 Good, fun if a bit too "Wild and crazy"
15 Neutral
16 Guarded, seemed a bit overbearing
@Muddy
To do not open the key, where you've described impressions: remove types numbers and sort types by socion order or randomly, please.
> Very Good: SEI, LIE, EII, ESE
If you've chosen befor opening the key, this points to possible LII.
I removed the types off each corresponding number if that pleases you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sol
I skimmed them all then examined each one by one using the key after each one. I sneak peeked a few admittedly after the skim but most of them matched my guessed impression anyway. (Typings seemed pretty good btw)
That pleases the ones which will do this test as they need the key stay closed. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Muddy
> I skimmed them all then examined each one by one using the key after each one.
So you partly sorted with opened key. It's lesser correctly.
> Typings seemed pretty good btw
At least, someone thinks such (besides me). :)
There are more women examples, so to do this test for men is easier. Also Ne type may help, besides opened key.
There was an unexpected level of consistency in my two most-liked ones: # and # turned out to be SEI and SLI lol. And I type IEE currently. Go figure. I really hated the ESI ones lol. I saw one/two of those videos and I was like, "NOPE!"
I didn't pick SEI because I felt like they would be a bit more critical of me or that they would be paying attention to me in a way I didn't like. SLI just seemed chill.
This video was the one I liked best: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXD-T1OiRQ0
I think that it's important to notice that there are some parts of us that we want to keep to ourselves. That's the privacy part of being an individual. I think certain types have different abilities to read different sides of you. Duals leave the sides of you that you want to be left alone, alone. Other types will impinge on those private places. You could probably say this in Socionics terms, but I think that demeans the significance of this idea.
Was this gotten with the closed key?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aramas
> Duals leave the sides of you that you want to be left alone, alone.
The main trait of duals - the help in superid regions. You feel pleasure, more harmony with yourself, rise of energy.
You seems say about weak nonvalued regions. Duals help and support you there softly, without significant criticism and don't push there oddly. You can't just leave "alone" any of 8 functions as they are similarly important. Duals may help on conscious or unconscious levels. Even when I'm just close to *II types, I feel lesser anxiety - I copy their emotional state, while get no supressing effects from Ni.
Why would I have read the key first? It would defeat the purpose :p. Of course, I had an idea that # was SLI based on the old Jewish looking dude. I'm kinda good at VI myself. I guessed # was IEI. Lol. So maybe this doesn't work quite as well for people who already know how to type others. But I was being honest with my attempt still.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sol
Also, with regards to what you said about functions, I'm not sure what I said was necessarily due to Socionics even though it's related it seems.
I went through the ones I liked originally a second time. It was then that I was able to narrow things down or give a secondary impression that contradicted the first.
Quote:
Originally Posted by maniac
Hey now. It sounds like you're just a bit salty about something. Calling someone pathetic just because you think they're idealistic isn't really justified, though, right?
Some people were impatient, especially P types tend for this. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Aramas
So hurrah, we got 1st good fit to the theory, - in case you'll place your video to check your type is ENFP indeed. It would be useful to see the full sorting from you, but seems you've limited the sorting by 2 "best" types befor opening the key.
You sorted by women, men or both? You've pointed to man example, so I'm curious.
> I had an idea that # was SLI based on the old Jewish looking dude.
as the most Jewish type I find ILI - they more relate to credits having Ni related to time, also Ni relates to mysticism
> I guessed # was IEI. Lol.
when EII man did this test, he've guessed correctly 50% of types groups. that EII was a novice. Ne and Fi are main functions used there. but he sorted strangely - he prefered own type, while all S-T went to bottom. he said that men examples he could to sort more classically, but did not try this
> So maybe this doesn't work quite as well for people who already know how to type others.
They can't be sure in assumptions, so should work in good degree, anyway.
> I'm not sure what I said was necessarily due to Socionics even though it's related it seems.
Duals try to don't hit in your weak functions regions, but try support there. They see you as a kid there which needs help.
> It was then that I was able to narrow things down or give a secondary impression that contradicted the first.
So the correct sorting you were able to do only on 2nd pass, after you have watched all the types. When you did the sorting during the initial watching this leaded you to significantly other result. Interesting. What places had SLI and SEI in the 1st sorting made during watching?
> It sounds like you're just a bit salty about something.
She has troubles in understanding of own type. So it's harder for her to accept IR theory and understand effects of duality. Her type is some F, excluding base Fi ones.
I came into this thread with the idea of checking out this typing method, but while a decent idea, I don't really trust the typings of the people used for the method.
I'm gay, so I looked at the videos of the men. I realized that the intention was for us to use the gender most likely to stimulate romantic attraction/duality. You said to use the opposite sex, but I knew you mean it for the purpose of potentially arousing the strongest feelings of duality, so I broke the rule to fulfil your goal. :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Sol
I didn't do a full sorting because I wasn't that interested in getting the full sorting. I was more interested in finding out which one or two types I felt best about. I have no problems typing others, but typing myself for some reason has always been an issue. I tend to very easily understand the mental attitudes of others at times, to such a degree that I can imagine myself being in those attitudes. Maybe that's an NF thing. It makes it a bit difficult to maintain a sense of self at times. (This is perhaps mixed with enneagram type 9.)
I didn't do the process necessarily by sorting. I just did it by picking out which ones I liked AT ALL (period, even a little bit) at first. After that, I went through and gave them either plus marks, minus marks, or left them neutral, depending on what my second impression was. There was only one that came out with a plus sign. And that was the SLI video set. Curiously enough, LII ended up being in the final running because of one particular individual that you included in the set that I thought was OK. I still felt better about the SEIs than the one LII I liked in the sets. lol
I'm not really interested in making a video for people to see. Sorry about that. I hope that my post gives you some hope about your method of typing though. I think it really does work.
Why don't you try it out and then see whether or not you agree with it? Or have you already looked at the key? If so, then there's no point.Quote:
Originally Posted by lavos
I don't need to, since having seen sol's typings in the forum. He doesn't even recognize subtypes; just from that I know his typing performance is low.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aramas
Such a spoilsport.Quote:
Originally Posted by lavos
Hence, the lesser quantity of men is enough (for Ne types, at least). This is good.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aramas
> I realized that the intention was for us to use the gender most likely to stimulate romantic attraction/duality.
Yep, there was the recommendation to use the romantically interesting sex. As romantically interesting sex/gender is more associated with the soul friendship, while other sex shifts to co-operation (and hence to similar types). Also the impressions from that sex should be stronger.
I'm glad that my hypothesis seems was correct and the recommendation have worked on you. I also saw a girl (EIE) which reported homosexual behavior and showed such interests, - she have chosen quasi-identity type to top and some of her club as the best, while types of duals club placed to bottom, where own duals placed to the lowest 16th position.
> I didn't do a full sorting because I wasn't that interested in getting the full sorting. I was more interested in finding out which one or two types I felt best about.
The problem is the test is not perfect. You are lucky to have Ne type what made the sorting easier. The full sorting is intended to find tendencies, as excellent fiting to IR theory is not expected.
> I tend to very easily understand the mental attitudes of others at times, to such a degree that I can imagine myself being in those attitudes.
It's empathy - common for NF types, especially having Fi in ego.
> This is perhaps mixed with enneagram type 9.
Are you able to assume Enneagram type by impressions from nonverbal on video-interview with unknown language? Like you do with Socionics types. I'd pm you a clip to think.
> I just did it by picking out which ones I liked AT ALL (period, even a little bit) at first. After that, I went through and gave them either plus marks, minus marks, or left them neutral, depending on what my second impression was. There was only one that came out with a plus sign. And that was the SLI video set.
What types you've chosen on 1st step?
> Curiously enough, LII ended up being in the final running because of one particular individual that you included in the set that I thought was OK.
Which LII there?
> I'm not really interested in making a video for people to see.
Your type seems to be NF, at least. Some suspicion is for EII, as high empathy is more common for them, than IEE. So if you have doubts in own type you may check it by creating a second account (afte some time) and a typing thread - then you remove the video (after 2 weeks, for example) - and so keep high anonymity. On the video you may tell any general things you like, as the main text is placed in questionnaires anyway.
There are no subtypes in classical Socionics so I don't even try to use that bs.Quote:
Originally Posted by lavos
> just from that I know his typing performance is low
So you think that I badly identify types because I either badly identify subtypes or don't use them. Your base T is seen excellently. :)
Also you may try to find someone who'd had with you real typing match >50% to think there is someone who identifies types good from your speculative opinion. That would give you some sense to say that I type badly compared to others in your perception. But objective thinking is not your strong part, what would be at LIE.
I understand that you don't like that I doubt in your LIE opinion about own type. :) If you'd was real LIE, then you take it simpler.
Your behavior closer to F type.
It is not necessary to have a typing convergence with anyone to confirm someone's typing. The problem is that there is not objetive way to discern people's types. No machine has been invented that can read a person's brain patterns and tell what type their are. When this happens, discussions such as this will be over. Until then, we are just grasping at straws. A hundred people could be saying that someone is whatever type, and they could all still be wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sol
But yeah, you're right; it is always annoying to have someone question your typing, because the action carries the implication that the person being retyped has poor self-awareness, or is not able to use the theory correctly, thus rendering their contributions useless. So ironically, I've exposed your own low typing performance. Subtypes are real, it doesn't matter what "classical socionics" says. Things evolve and advance, you know?
If you doubt my skill so much, I can provide this gallery for reference. Perhaps you'll learn something ;)
Other problems with this typing method (besides the low reliability of the typings):
- You are seeing this people on video. Meaning, you are not interacting with them in any way, and especially not face to face, which is where ITR's really can be experienced.
- The fact that a certain kinship can be felt with someone you are seeing on video does not mean that you have a positive intertype relation with them. There's a myriad of factors at play.
- I don't know how it works for other people, but I might like some particular person of a determinate type, and not others. For example, I might like some SLE's and not others, I might like some EII's and not others. I don't like all SLE's, and I don't like all EII's. I don't even like all ESI's.
- It is possible to like people that apparently don't have a positive ITR with you. I tend to like some ESE's a great deal (for example).
IR effects are felt from nonverbal. If you'll give me your video, I'll say your type and you'll have a chance to notice this.Quote:
Originally Posted by lavos
Is this the best you can come up with after being defeated?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sol
For what? So that you can type me "INFP" like you did with @totalize?
There goes your typing reliability.
You said nothing meaningful objective against the correctness of my typings or the method. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by lavos
I've offered you the easy way to understand that you are wrong and you've rejected it still.
> So that you can type me "INFP" like you did with totalize?
You seem to be F type and INFP is not excluded.
I suspect you was typed to INFP, but prefer to dream yourself better than you are as ENTJ. That's why you may ask this. INFP is not bad version for you - you are intelligent but have hard issues with T. I need to see your video to be sure, - so I recommend to create typing theme with it. You are not base T for sure.
> There goes your typing reliability.
There is nothing objective to think my typings are bad or significantly worse than at others. And as you could see recently, there are chances my typings are not bad objectively.
Stay with your dreams or give your video to help you understand me and yourself.
I am not willing to post my appearance online. I can provide test results for the test of your choice. But you seem to be a pretty thick-headed person, so I'm not sure I want to continue this discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sol
I'm curious, can you say how not recognizing subtypes makes typing performance low?Quote:
Originally Posted by lavos
I didn't had the patience to look the videos so i just went by the pictures.
The quite ok, you can gimme them all, want to befriend them: LIE (just the girls)
The cute friends i think i can have nice converstations with: ILI, ESI
The could be my significant other and never get bored, help and respect eact other: LII
The I think we can be comfortable just by existing in a room in total silence, could be fun and could listen them for hours: SLI
The OK types: LSE, LIE
The confused about types: SEI, IEE, ESE
Neutral, guess fine: EII (but i fell in love with the second EII), EIE
The rather not thanks: IEI
And the HELL NO: SLE, SEE, LSI
Those pictures have almost nothing about nonverbal compared to several clips per every blogger.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lukida
Either you follow the recommendations or get bs with high probability. It's not a game.
Anyone (i.e. eunice, 1982slater, silke...) who's ever been exceptionally good at typing on this forum has used subtypes. It's just natural during the process of training oneself to VI, to notice the existence of the two subtypes. I did at one point. The fact that sol has not noticed them means his VI precision is not high. But that's not the only reason (and this subjetive); I checked his type galleries in his signatures, and disagreed with many of his typings. He seems to have pinned down certain types, but with others he tends to make mistakes. For example; he types SEE-Fi's as INFP usually.Quote:
Originally Posted by Myst
Sentence 1: bandwagon fallacyQuote:
Originally Posted by lavos
Not applicable since I am not asserting that the majority of people (far from it) are able to see the subtypes, hence they must be true. Only those who I have deemed to be exceptionally good at typing. It is evidence that when you go past a certain point, and become good at typing, you become able to differentiate the subtypes. It happened to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aramas
Very applicable actually lol. You're asserting that people who are good at typing use subtypes. People want to be good at typing, otherwise they wouldn't be here. So, you're in essence telling people that they aren't good if they don't use subtypes. It's bandwagon by implication. "Don't you want to be good at typing like these people here? Use subtypes!" The group majority here isn't people who type but people are are good at typing.Quote:
Originally Posted by lavos
Myself, I do use subtypes. But with something as abstract and vague as Socionics, I can't say there's any proof that we should be using subtypes, so I'll entertain the idea that they don't exist.
You need to stop trying to derail Sol's thread. If you want to make your own thread and talk about how bad you think he is at typing, you can do that. I'm sure you'll get lots of attention there. But to me you just look like some angry little puppy trying to nip at the heels of someone who has actually made a constructive, helpful post. Disagreeing is fine, but not detracting from the point and purpose of the thread.
If you really want to show us how much better you are, maybe you should make your own test.
@Aramas
It's nice you are trying to protect me and the thread, but I'd prefer you answered some questions to you above.
lavos tries to gather all scepticism about what I did here in one place. Some lack of understanding makes him a little funny. The more he tries, the better he thinks and so should come to the Truth sometimes. We may just leave him on his worthy way.
I can do with enneagram what I do with Socionics, yes. Or at least, I think so. Instinct stacking is easier than type with non-verbal stuff. The eyes are especially important. They really are the window of the soul.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sol
As far as potentially being EII, that's a possibility. But I think IEE is more likely. EII tend to have a more direct understanding of people by feeling somehow connected to them. My understanding comes more from a mental attitude like a behaviorist's along with being pretty good at making inferences. It just happens very quickly in my mind, so it might be mistaken for a more emotive kind of empathy that an INFx might have.
For example, one time I noticed that a girl had a certain complexion on the top of her feet that came from a certain kind of blood circulation. I also noticed that when she smiled, it was always with her mouth but not really her eyes. I concluded that she was depressed, and I was right when I asked her about it. There was also another friend of mine whom I concluded was on antidepressants because of her flattened affect one day. I was right again on the first try.
Another example is when I somehow managed to conclude that a person was untrustworthy on the basis of a single emoji. As it turned out, that person was a computer hacker who didn't recognize or respect the privacy of others.
On the first step, I think I chose 4, 6, 7, 12, and 15. Along with that, I had a strong negative impulse about 11.
I think <name> was the one LII I had a more neutral or even slightly positive association with.
Zone near eyes have many mimic muscles - a lot info there. When people use glasses it makes troubles for nonverbal reading. If the glasses are dark - you can't read them at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aramas
I'll pm the clip.
> There was also another friend of mine whom I concluded was on antidepressants because of her flattened affect one day. I was right again on the first try.
What is called "antidepressants" do what they are named - stimulate, they don't touch emotions significantly. People may look unnaturally, - active, but without internal connection.
I had a case of insight about a medicine too - I suspected a girl to be F type, but when I saw her video - I could not read from nonverbal is she T or F, sometimes she reminded T, - I asked do she takes something - she said that takes a sedative, - it supressed nonverbal and she looked closer to T type.
> On the first step, I think I chose 4, 6, 7, 12, and 15. Along with that, I had a strong negative impulse about 11.
4 and 6 are more expected from EII. 7 - both. 12 - IEE. 15 - both. So 1st step was ambivalent for EII vs IEE. The 2nd step have pushed IEE, but not totally. There stays a chance for you be EII based of this test, - like 30% against 70% for IEE.
I recommend to look and compare LSE+LIE vs SLI+SEI.
> I think <...> was the one LII I had a more neutral or even slightly positive association with.
He has good body condition not common for LII what could to mix impressions.
The name is better to remove now from your post to don't open what type is there.
@Sol, I think I generally prefer LSE to LIE. The one LIE that makes me think differently and more positively about LIE is the first one in the list. The LSEs seen like they might be a bit too firm or abrasive, but then again some LIEs are like that too, or too distant. The second LIE was like that: too distant, didn't talk enough really. The last one I think was most abrasive in the LIE category. As far as SEI versus SLI, the SEI one I liked best was the second one, and the SLI I liked best of course was the younger one. I already stated SLI > SEI I think.
@Aramas
I mean to compare 2 groups each having 2 types: (LSE+LIE) vs (SLI+SEI). To understand do you prefer base Te or base Si. And only groups - generalized impression from types, not concrete people.
@Sol
Oh I see. Definitely the latter group. SEI+ SLI. No question there.
Then seems IEE.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aramas
Taking into account your higher abbility to use nonverbal methods, you may create own list of bloggers. Just watch and type any of them, then place names and links in txt file, sometimes update a theme on the forum like I do (you may don't make pictures, just names + links). There are a lot of actors lists, but to make such with bloggers seems I was first. Bloggers are better as types examples as they are more natural and have a lot of clips in one place.
@lavos finally someone who understand smth!
I totally agree with the point on subtype, in its essence, which is I think the same fault we find in Sol's tests.
I don't give too much attention to subtypes usually, and not interested in pointing them out in someone... but they hold a great truth, which Sol totally lacks: there are not only 16 kinds of people. There are infinite shades, even inside each type.
It's nice to remember how Jung suggests to enhance one own's creative function as well, in orded to gain access to our deepest layers, as well as suggesting that some people do this better than others.
Because, despite it all, there are levels of evolution to each type which won't make any given LSE to be the commander of an army, sometime they can be and think, totally different.
This is the idea implied in "accepting the subtypes", you just accept we humans are more complex than a 16 types theory.
Many of the people in Sol videos are actually socionists who type themselves differently around youtube.
Many typings just look like extreme charicatures of some of the bad descriptions of the functions you can read around ze internet :]
actually those have been inventedQuote:
The problem is that there is not objetive way to discern people's types. No machine has been invented that can read a person's brain patterns and tell what type their are.
in bloggers list: 2Quote:
Originally Posted by pinoline
one of which have changed the opinion about own type to wrong recently
who's thatQuote:
Originally Posted by Sol
youtube.com/watch?v=929FlXihG4kQuote:
Originally Posted by pinoline
Your typings were more accurate in general than what I had prejudged. Did you come up with all these typings yourself, or were they stablished via consensus in another (russian) forum? (yes, I looked at the key, but only after I had completed the exercise)
Note: I am 99% sure of my type~
@lavos
The needed format is the list of types names (without numbers to don't open the key), without groups. Like: ILE, SEI, ...
You prefer: extraverts, Fe/Ti. not delta
> Did you come up with all these typings yourself, or were they stablished via consensus in another (russian) forum?
90% these are totally my versions, - I did not knew other opinions befor agreement with that version. 10% - I could to see some blogger typed on a forum and then to agree with the version or to make own. Such thing as consensus on typology forums is so rare, so did not even thought about this to make the lists.
> Note: I am 99% sure of my type
If you still did not check your type by IR intuitive impressions with people near you and which were meaningful in your life - high chance you may mistake.
Top 4: ILE,SEE, EIE, ESEQuote:
Originally Posted by Sol
Bottom 4: SEI, IEE, LSE, ILI
I have checked it via ITRs IRL. But I think you are making a mistake; the most meaningful people in your life don't need to be good ITR's.Quote:
If you still did not check your type by IR intuitive impressions with people near you and which were meaningful in your life - high chance you may mistake.
I meant without grouping, full liner sorting of all 16 types. For your format I've said already the result.Quote:
Originally Posted by lavos
As your type is F, not T - based on your messages, then IEI seems as most possible.
Replace or remove numbers from previous post, as you open the key having numbers and types in your messages.
> the most meaningful people in your life don't need to be good ITR's
I did not said this. :) I said only to check how your impressions from such people fit to IR theory.
I am a somewhat F-ish LIE, that's true, but I'm not an F type. Interesting that like I predicted you are typing me your conflictor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sol
You said: "If you still did not check your type by IR intuitive impressions with people near you and which were meaningful in your life - high chance you may mistake.", Implying that meaningful people in your life must have some sort of correlation with certain intertypes (I assume you mean positive ones).Quote:
did not said this. :) I said only to check how your impressions from such people fit to IR theory.
You are F type with high probability, according to the quality of your argumentation in T region. Seems Fe valued and prefering extraverts. I doubt about SEI as your thinking seems as more complex. EIE is the closest to your current version which I can't exclude still. If I'd had your video I'd could be more sure which F you are.Quote:
Originally Posted by lavos
It's called Intuition, something which you could use a bit of.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sol
Alright.Quote:
Seems Fe valued and prefering extraverts. I doubt about SEI as your thinking seems as more complex. EIE is the closest to your current version which I can't exclude still. If I'd had your video I'd could be more sure which F you are.
I was bored and decided to do this for fun. Didn't watch any of the ASMR because I can't judge my reaction to someone when they are doing a performance of some kind.
- EII -They seem nice and the male one's look intelectual. AndressASMR was very cute:love: Holly Henry (hollymaezers) too.
- LSI - Some of them are annoying/intimidating. Don't really think we may have anything in common. Grigorij Sokolov (grigoryi1) looks drunk lol
- IEI - Really don't have an opinion. Didn't feel anyhing in particular. I've been watching simply_kenna (McKaelinn)'s videas in the past and I don't like her but I don't hate her either.
- LIE - No no no no. Such a contrast between Yurij Dud(bad vibes) and Sobolev(very nice reaction to him). There's this one guy who has a cat and talks about atom bombs and he was also ok.
- ILI - They were ok.
- SLE - Not sure about them. Only the guy who has pranked his sister was ok but not pleasant. TheDRZJ needs to chill. The asmr flight attendant was the weirdest thing I've seen in a while.
- LII - They were alright, seemed introverted. Nothing wrong with them.
- SEE - Idk
- ILE - Niceeeee vibes. Kawaii Kunicorn was cute.
- LSE - I like them. Lizaonair is soooo pretty, the guy who talks about hardware is nice.
- ESI - The guy I liked is here lol. Good vibes.
- SEI - I liked them. Esp Yelena Shejdlina, but they are all so cute and girly lol.
- IEE - I don't mind them. They are fine.
- ESE - Idk
- SLI - no opinion lol
- EIE - I like themmm.
Best were ILE,LSE
Worst were LIE,LSI,EIE
@Ida
The testing is useful when data is in the recommended format. Never say numbers, as if to say types in next messages - the key becomes opened. Say only types names. Concrete bloggers names also should be removed for same reason, and they are redundant as only generalized impression from a type is important. Use people only of one sex, not both.
Anyway, this test is secondary method. Video is what is needed 1st.
I fixed ittt, please read my mind now :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sol
:) I'll read your type by video. And may try to guess your type's traits if you'll give results as it was recommended: the list of 16 types from best to worst by the said critetion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ida
Also remove text with bloggers names - they open the key. If you want to say impressions from concrete types (not bloggers) - place the types in random order, pls, but not how they are in key as this... opens the key.
I got :
ESE,SEI,EII,EIE,ILE,SLI,LIE,IEI,LSE,LII,ESI,SEE,SL E,IEE,ILI,LSI
shining was typed to ILE by video
this sorting was done after he saw the key. he tends to think himself as LII and lesser possible as ILE
would be good if he'd added the sorting he did befor he saw the key in the message above
I have done it fast the first time and without note so sorting was a bit random. Second time i remembered some of the keys so it probably influenced my new ranking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sol
Anyway my first ranking :
LII,EII,ESE,EIE, (the most i feel compatible)
SEI,ILE, (strong too, but less)
IEE,LSE,IEI,
ESI,SLI,ILI,SLE,LIE,SEE,LSI (bad to very bad)
For the video, i am not sure it's representative of me, i am too smiling compared to my more natural state. It was influenced by the format of video, where i was answering to random questions discovered on the moments. If it was more serious in the format like formal presentation, i would probably have adopted a more serious attitude and i feel more at ease in front of a camera than real people, because the camera don't judge me (and the ppl looking i don't see their eventual negative reactions so idgf), though i tend to be a bit random even on serious stuff because i don't tend to have real idea of what i am going to say before i begin to speak so it can be quite wtf sometimes like where i am sometimes readjusting what i just said, looking kind of insane from other ppl so most people won't see that, i'll stay in my shell unless i won't be judged/mocked for what i say, which is rare, not that i am all the time saying silly things though.
And considering relationship according to socionics predictions IRL, i still think i am more likely LII.
as the impressions gave only one type, not were too controversal, so the clip was goodQuote:
Originally Posted by shining
> i tend to be a bit random even on serious stuff because i don't tend to have real idea of what i am going to say before i begin to speak
P style
Yes but maybe it didn't give the good one. And tbh i prefer the idea to be ILE than LII, so i am not sure to be unbiased in my answers, to lean more toward ILE, like for this P stuff i am not so sure, though ideally it definitely is more interesting to come unprepared and just let the thoughts flow. I don't think it's impossible for LII to appreciate this way of being, even if more unlikely i guess. Think you are some type and it will become more true to you, independantly of the validity of this thought, so the traits are going to become more and more real to some extent of the ability of the brain to change in that way, even if it's not who you really are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sol
The possibility that I get sure and wrong impression is low. Bad material gives contradictory impressions.Quote:
Originally Posted by shining
> And tbh i prefer the idea to be ILE than LII
The main issue is your behavior shifted to I. But it can be explaned by non-types factors and you noticed that befor those factors appeared the behavior was close to extraverted.
> I don't think it's impossible for LII to appreciate this way
Look at my examples of LII and ILE men. Try to feel which are more similar to you.
> Think you are some type and it will become more true to you, independantly of the validity of this thought, so the traits are going to become more and more real to some extent of the ability of the brain to change in that way, even if it's not who you really are.
Thinking yourself as wrong type will keep you in borders of real type anyway. The main thing which is changed - your perception of yourself, how you filter this information. Some surface behavior may become more contradictory, but mostly you'll behave as you like, naturally for you (especially when you are sure in yourself), but not according to texts in some books. I saw not a single time when people tried to play other types (as thought themselves such) - after some point of watching their behavior (not what they tell about themselves), communication with them, impressions from nonverbal - you'll notice significant contradictions, "strange" to be that type and will get doubts, then if you'll investigate that "strange" - you'll get another version.
For example, a girl thought herself Ne type for years and then stoped on EII. She said many things which fit good to descriptions of that type and I agreed on a short time. The "strange" at 1st I've noticed in our private discussion, - non-typical aggressive flirting/getting friends her style, some lack of courtesy with rude and unsuitable joking, redundant assertive moralizing in non-elegant style, the lack of understanding me where was evident with rude showing of being offenced. I said it's not EII, but mb ESI in what I've become sure later. But she fooled me at 1st, many other people, fooled herself for 3-4 years and still thinks EII despite all my arguments.
Yeah and i noticed Ti use only later in my life like when i was 16 and began practicing poker who developped a lot my Ti-Ni-Te, before i have no real idea of what function i was using, if not Ti i was suspecting a P function, so Ti or Ne or Si but not of them seemed to really match in most circonstances.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sol
Maybe a bit more like ILE, at least if i am comparing with my video, but i don't really know how i am interacting with people, it's for me different than interacting with a camera, i am more inert/calm/controlled/restrained i think with people.
If i really am Ne leading and i get convinced of it it will indeed become more real in more active form, instead of being of a more passive side of Ne (if i am Ne lead).
Just to clarify the feedback between Leading and Creative, how i see it for LII and ILE (when the creative is needed):
for LII, it would be some deep thoughts about a topic > Ti can't solve it by itself > use of Ne to generate ideas > Ti reevalute the ideas to see if 1 of them fits for the problem and keep going further into the topics if necessary
for ILE, generation of ideas > selection of 1 idea looking quite interesting > evaluation with Ti to establish and make the idea more intelligible, tentative to break the inconsistencies, refinement :
*if no apparent inconsistency > back to Ne and looking for potential improvement of the idea :
-if satisfied and the idea acquired her potential > come back step 1
-if more improvement added > go to Ti and repeat
*if apparent inconsistency > back step 1
Something like. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by shining
I don't know how INTj relates to this: after writing stuffs, there is a need to refine, use of a better wording to suppress redundancy, making the idea more intelligible. It sounds more like ILE. Does LII can be quite chaotic in their writing at first or their writing are already structured, and through Ti they are just expressing directly into writing without need to refine most of the time ? I am guessing everyone need refining to some degree, but this process is more needed in P.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sol
J types are not chaotic. LII prefer to have an initial model, some structure, and then find _new ideas_ which fit in it. It's like you have a machine and then think - what to add there else, how to improve the existing. Or you have a program algorithm and LII with a pleasure will think how to make it better.Quote:
Originally Posted by shining
> I am guessing everyone need refining to some degree, but this process is more needed in P.
Refining of the text is mostly relates to how to say the ideas you already have there - it's Ti work.
I relate more to LII i think. I am not caracterised by abundancy of ideas but more looking for ideas applied to something at least already started.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sol
To distinguish between mirror types is better to use other traits like dichotomies and IR. The difference between leading and creative is much lesser noticable for the typing and is easier for mistake. Dichotomies point to ILE more than LII. IR sympathies - to LII, but for this are better IRL people - type them, check impressions. At now you have contradictions to choose LII or ILE with assurance. I have no doubt in ILE, as I did not get from nonverbal what LII give me.Quote:
Originally Posted by shining