Examples of Socionics Alpha types

[Echo]

specifically noticed ego Ti, Ne. today i perceive ILE as more possible for him

right, obviously if you typed him LII It would be Ti and Ne. my question is what specific behaviours of his did you observe that you attribute to Ti and Ne?

[nifl]

right, obviously if you typed him LII It would be Ti and Ne. my question is what specific behaviours of his did you observe that you attribute to Ti and Ne?

it's mainly done through intuitive impressions, so hard to describe well. the impression of low emotionality/thoughtfulness and mental sophistication are normal for NTs, etc for other dichotomies. harder for specific functional attitudes, but i perceive Ne ego to be more ''insightful'' compared with the ''dreaminess'' of Ni ego etc. IR feelings are also used in this evaluation - that the behaviour associated with intuition is pleasant, but not his behaviour with T/F (his smiling, for example). Te/Fi types' smiles are more pleasant for me than his.
to connect types with mannerismic impressions is something that needs to be trained with IRL and videos. but for celebrities for which you do not have adequate details about them it's close to necessary to evaluate by this method

[Echo]

it's mainly done through intuitive impressions, so hard to describe well. the impression of low emotionality/thoughtfulness and mental sophistication are normal for NTs, etc for other dichotomies. harder for specific functional attitudes, but i perceive Ne ego to be more ''insightful'' compared with the ''dreaminess'' of Ni ego etc. IR feelings are also used in this evaluation - that the behaviour associated with intuition is pleasant, but not his behaviour with T/F (his smiling, for example). Te/Fi types' smiles are more pleasant for me than his.
to connect types with mannerismic impressions is something that needs to be trained with IRL and videos. but for celebrities for which you do not have adequate details about them it's close to necessary to evaluate by this method

So you're just typing based on how you subjectively respond to him?

[nifl]

So you're just typing based on how you subjectively respond to him?

from a functional perspective, no
from the perspective that anything is subject to the limits of the individual and human perception in general, yes

there is afaik no objective proof of the existence of jungian types and thus no proof of the validity of any typing method. only arguments. the argument for this method (which will be understood with practice, mainly) is that mannerisms are harder to censor than ''verbal'' information about yourself, and so will be much more reliable for typing those for whom trustworthy information is limited
if you analyse types of people you know IRL correctly, you can begin to notice the similarity between same types in mannerisms too

[Echo]

from a functional perspective, no
from the perspective that anything is subject to the limits of the individual and human perception in general, yes

there is afaik no objective proof of the existence of jungian types and thus no proof of the validity of any typing method. only arguments. the argument for this method (which will be understood with practice, mainly) is that mannerisms are harder to censor than ''verbal'' information about yourself, and so will be much more reliable for typing those for whom trustworthy information is limited
if you analyse types of people you know IRL correctly, you can begin to notice the similarity between same types in mannerisms too

but if you’re just connecting mannerisms with other people you've met and not with actual functions then all you’re really doing is identifying two or more people who are the same type. You’re not actually able to be certain which type it is that they are. Because how do you know the first person you identified wasn't a mistype?

[nifl]

but if you’re just connecting mannerisms with other people you've met and not with actual functions

it's connected with actual functions just like other behaviour. more directly connected with functions, as it's harder to manipulate your mannerisms than your speech. likewise to understand that other behaviour fits to certain functions you apprehend (by logic, mainly) a generalized image of those people and connect it with the psychological type. that N types tend to be imaginative and disconnected from the physical world, for example

then all you’re really doing is identifying two or more people who are the same type.

by their common traits which fit to typological theory, yes.

You’re not actually able to be certain which type it is that they are.

as they generally fit the theory well, then you can be nigh certain with enough typing experience. the more experience you have, the more data you have to evaluate the validity of the model

Because how do you know the first person you identified wasn't a mistype?

you generally think about the types of those you've previously typed and re-evaluate if necessary. if they fit the theory well, then it shouldn't be a mistype
to go about this successfully it's important to stick to the basic, more trustworthy theory. leave out Reinin, +/-, cognitive styles etc. and use intertypal theory with ppl IRL to get independent data about your own type for a more assured conclusion.

[Echo]

it's connected with actual functions just like other behaviour. more directly connected with functions, as it's harder to manipulate your mannerisms than your speech. likewise to understand that other behaviour fits to certain functions you apprehend (by logic, mainly) a generalized image of those people and connect it with the psychological type. that N types tend to be imaginative and disconnected from the physical world, for example


by their common traits which fit to typological theory, yes.


as they generally fit the theory well, then you can be nigh certain with enough typing experience. the more experience you have, the more data you have to evaluate the validity of the model


you generally think about the types of those you've previously typed and re-evaluate if necessary. if they fit the theory well, then it shouldn't be a mistype
to go about this successfully it's important to stick to the basic, more trustworthy theory. leave out Reinin, +/-, cognitive styles etc. and use intertypal theory with ppl IRL to get independent data about your own type for a more assured conclusion.

except you still haven’t told me anything that would directly connect that actor with Ti + Ne ego. Mannerisms can be attributed to many things, including the environment one was brought up in (things like culture, as well as one’s parents). Most Italians talk with their hands, is that an indication that every Italian is the same sociotype? If you're going to make a typing statement you should at least be able to explain the reasoning behind that statement. you still haven’t pointed to a single mannerism of his that you find is typical of LIIs.

[nifl]

except you still haven’t told me anything that would directly connect that actor with Ti + Ne ego. Mannerisms can be attributed to many things, including the environment one was brought up in (things like culture, as well as one’s parents). Most Italians talk with their hands, is that an indication that every Italian is the same sociotype? If you're going to make a typing statement you should at least be able to explain the reasoning behind that statement. you still haven’t pointed to a single mannerism of his that you find is typical of LIIs.

as i mentioned, it's hard to satisfactorily describe intuitive impressions related to type characteristics. for me Ne look ''insightful'', Se ''brutish'', Fi ''amiable'' etc. IR has a significant influence on the flavour of the perception.
more experience is needed to understand it. to discuss intuitive typings is often not fruitful

[Echo]

as i mentioned, it's hard to satisfactorily describe intuitive impressions related to type characteristics. for me Ne look ''insightful'', Se ''brutish'', Fi ''amiable'' etc. IR has a significant influence on the flavour of the perception.
more experience is needed to understand it. to discuss intuitive typings is often not fruitful

OK but you do see the problem with that right? it means that it’s impossible to verify. if you were to say you typed him as a TI type because he’s very analytical and is explaining things quite a lot, then someone could say fair enough. even if you were to say, I have noticed that he wears green a lot and most Ti types prefer wearing green, that statement would have a lot of issues with it, but at least you would be pointing to a fact that could be verified. intuitive impressions don’t cut it when typing unless you have some sort of objective statement to back it up.

[Distance]

SEI

[maresnest]

LII, contact subtype (LII-Ne)









the first video i remember seeing of his was from a friend who sent this one to me and said “this just sounds like something you would say. like if we were watching this together you would be saying this” and then i got sucked into his channel from that because my friend was absolutely right and his style was so appealing to me

[nifl]

Little Joel - F type

“this just sounds like something you would say. like if we were watching this together you would be saying this” and then i got sucked into his channel from that because my friend was absolutely right and his style was so appealing to me

maybe you're the same type. which is not LII

[Echo]

Little Joel - F type


maybe you're the same type. which is not LII

i’m sorry, but you’re terrible at typing. nothing you say is factually accurate and you can’t even point out any specific reasons why you type people a certain way. please stop clogging this thread with your incorrect typings

[maresnest]

i’m sorry, but you’re terrible at typing. nothing you say is factually accurate and you can’t even point out any specific reasons why you type people a certain way. please stop clogging this thread with your incorrect typings

right like i even broke little/big joel down by functions here and i dont think it could be more obvious

[nifl]

you can’t even point out any specific reasons why you type people a certain way

hm. sometimes F types give the illusion that they have the memory of a goldfish

nothing you say is factually accurate

before types are proven to exist (and with it an objective typing method) not much ''factual'' can be said about types yet. only some correlations between typings and other traits.

@maresnest
it's obvious he's emotional. which is more important than your analysis using doubtful theory (forget about the weird arithmetic that has no basis in Jungian typology) and limited good data (don't just trust anything ppl say about themselves). try to feel his type traits in his mannerisms. it's often more stable (harder to mask without drugs or smth, so higher quality data) and more whole (supposing there's sufficient video footage, a higher amount of reliable data) material when typing people you don't know extensively yourself.

ofc, it helps a great deal to understand your own type in this whole matter, which is F, not LII

[Echo]

hm. sometimes F types give the illusion that they have the memory of a goldfish

really? where in the theory does it say that?

before types are proven to exist (and with it an objective typing method) not much ''factual'' can be said about types yet. only some correlations between typings and other traits.

so let me get this straight… you’re saying that there is no objective factual data on types, but at the same time you feel comfortable making absolute statements on whether people have typed themselves correctly or not? That is completely absurd.

[Distance]

You have Sol, nifl, and others making declarations of faith, aside from any tools.

[Distance]

It's a YT war

[nifl]

really? where in the theory does it say that?

the problems that F types have with retaining facts in mind is common to see described in the theory

you’re saying that there is no objective factual data on types

it would necessitate to have an proven accurate typing method to have this. for now, there is just data that correlates with non-proven typings.

but at the same time you feel comfortable making absolute statements on whether people have typed themselves correctly or not?

i have no proven accurate typing method, but i have subjective confidence in some typings like other typers can have. and i have reasons for why some methods, typings are better. it's not hard to understand.

[Distance]

the problems that F types have with retaining facts in mind is common to see described in the theory


it would necessitate to have an proven accurate typing method to have this. for now, there is just data that correlates with non-proven typings.


i have no proven accurate typing method, but i have subjective confidence in some typings like other typers can have. and i have reasons for why some methods, typings are better. it's not hard to understand.

What's hard to understand is why you push your faith on others, nifl.

[Echo]

the problems that F types have with retaining facts in mind is common to see described in the theory

Cite your source.

it would necessitate to have an proven accurate typing method to have this. for now, there is just data that correlates with non-proven typings.


i have no proven accurate typing method, but i have subjective confidence in some typings like other typers can have. and i have reasons for why some methods, typings are better. it's not hard to understand.

Yet, you make objective statements. Next time be accurate and qualify your statements with an “in my opinion” before you say something ridiculous.

[Distance]

It's an aggression toward the perception of weakness, in choices. Like Sol, like the unhappy LII here.

[Badger]

LII, contact subtype (LII-Ne)









the first video i remember seeing of his was from a friend who sent this one to me and said “this just sounds like something you would say. like if we were watching this together you would be saying this” and then i got sucked into his channel from that because my friend was absolutely right and his style was so appealing to me

Doug Walker is probably practically perfect; that means ILI ∪ ILE. And innocent. A man of all seasons like St. Thomas Moore.