View Poll Results: How do you see typing by comparison to others?

Voters
35. You may not vote on this poll
  • It's the most practical and reliable method. I prefer it.

    2 5.71%
  • I use it to get a first impression, but I don't let it be the "final word" on any typing.

    17 48.57%
  • I avoid using it as it leads to mistakes. How do you know you typed the other persons correctly?

    3 8.57%
  • I use it increasingly as I build up a "data base" of each type.

    13 37.14%
Results 1 to 33 of 33

Thread: Typing by comparison with other people

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Typing by comparison with other people

    I don't think anyone here totally avoids, or dismisses, the practice of typing people by comparing them with other people whose type you (presumably) already identified correctly.

    However, some seem to make it the central point of their typing, so that if they know enough people of a certain type, they see that as enough to type others, not bothering much anymore with other typing methods.

    Others, by contrast, while using "typing by comparison" to get a first guess, perhaps, they prefer to "check" that typing by trying to analyse each person anew, according to functions, dichotomies, etc.

    Where do you stand?
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  2. #2
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    North Italy
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    16,615
    Mentioned
    235 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think that typing by comparison is a good way to catch the essence of a type, but a poor way to determine which type a person is in the socionics system. Basically, if we reduce our set of typing-tools to comparison and relationships, we can form a typology without the labels attached. Thus, we might be good at predicting the development of groups and relations, but we might be poor at communicating our findings.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  3. #3
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG View Post
    Basically, if we reduce our set of typing-tools to comparison and relationships, we can form a typology without the labels attached. Thus, we might be good at predicting the development of groups and relations, but we might be poor at communicating our findings.
    Do you mean that each person might develop their own, personal, typology, that might work on its own, but could be difficult to relate to anyone else's? As if each person had invented their own language?
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  4. #4
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    North Italy
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    16,615
    Mentioned
    235 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat View Post
    Do you mean that each person might develop their own, personal, typology, that might work on its own, but could be difficult to relate to anyone else's? As if each person had invented their own language?
    Yeah, that's what I think. I think that if somebody observes well, the similarities between people are evident, and also the fact that people tend to group according to quadras. So yes it can totally end that way. Obviously I suppose at least a basic knowledge of socionics too.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  5. #5
    aka Slacker Slacker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    North Korea
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    8,814
    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think it's generally a bad idea to type because people seem similar. I do find that sometimes people remind me of people whose type I'm pretty sure of, and I'm sure that influences me, but I'm careful to not let myself assume two people are the same type because they seem kind of similar to me. For one thing, I can't be sure person A is correctly typed, and beyond that two people can seem similar for a number of reasons, type being only one. And even within Socionics there are reasons other than identical types for two people to seem similar - maybe an ISTp and ISFp might be somewhat similar, maybe two Eps might seem a bit similar, etc. And then the other thing is that two people might seem similar in one circumstance, but that circumstance might be behind their similarity more than type. Like, two people talking about the same thing who have the same basic opinion aren't necessarily the same type. And two young women who get flirty online with an attractive young man might not be the same type.
    It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.
    -Mark Twain


    You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    8,577
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I use it increasingly as I build up a "data base" of each type.
    that's precisely it.


    i think the only real criticism here is that typing by stupid traits like "he dyed his hair green." obviously, that's bullshit. comparisons based on legitimate socionics traits, i think, hardly constitute a reprehensible typing method.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    /
    Posts
    7,038
    Mentioned
    175 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I try (am trying) to identify the sort of "essence" of IM elements so I can hone in on them... I feel I've made some progress in that area. The area that isn't together quite so well yet is differentiating, say, strong-valued from weak-valued, and that kind of thing (which is why my attention has been turning more to Model A at present). Also there is the sea of what isn't relevant to type (context-dependent and "why" dependent) that has fuzzy boundaries in my mind with the sea of what is related.

    I think that comparing people can be helpful in trying to see the scope of what is related to type and what is not, how the same IM element may manifest itself differently in different people depending on a multitude of factors, seeing the essence of the IM element as similar patterns emerge in different people that all match the abstract idea the IM element takes in ones mind. Also, watching the interaction of others yields information.

    (Please note, I could still at any time decide that this theory is largely arbitrary, subjective, and illusory... a model that appears to match people, and can be fitted to them, but doesn't necessarily approach any sort of "truth." I am waiting. Even if it starts seeming more and more that way, the other factor that can hold my interest is if it remains interesting nonetheless.)

  8. #8
    Logos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,407
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat View Post
    I don't think anyone here totally avoids, or dismisses, the practice of typing people by comparing them with other people whose type you (presumably) already identified correctly.

    However, some seem to make it the central point of their typing, so that if they know enough people of a certain type, they see that as enough to type others, not bothering much anymore with other typing methods.

    Others, by contrast, while using "typing by comparison" to get a first guess, perhaps, they prefer to "check" that typing by trying to analyse each person anew, according to functions, dichotomies, etc.

    Where do you stand?
    On its own, typing by comparison is not reliable, so it should be used as a supplementary means of typing and not the sole means. No method of typing should be the sole means, but many methods should be used as a means of supporting the conclusion reached.
    "Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
    Johari Box

  9. #9
    Ezra's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    9,168
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I build up a knowledge base of each type. However, I can separate the legitimate differences (such as the fact that one person is brilliant at getting others to do what they want them do to; who is good at facing problems head on etc. and the other refuses to order others about, so they blatently can't be the same type) from the silly ones (she gets quite angry when someone drinks her tea but he doesn't, so they can't be the same type), enough to be able to discern types from one another.

  10. #10
    Steve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,457
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I do a combination of both - I have a distinct vibe that goes with each type, but also have connected socioncs theory to what I pick up about different types, so I guess I sorta see stuff play out in a person.

    I do plenty of comparing too, sure. But I try to compare based on stuff that doesn't seem as fickle. For example two houses could be made by the same builder, but one could be an English Tudor while the other could be a Country French.

  11. #11
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    There are (at least) two different things.

    One is to use your experiences of people you know to understand how functions (and temperaments, etc etc) are manifested in real life. That is unavoidable, and desirable IMO.

    Another - for which a clear case hasn't been made yet on this thread, but I'd like to hear one - is when people go, "I am sure fill-in-the-blank and myself (or another fill-in-the-blank) are identicals! If fill-in-the-blank isn't a fill-in-the-blank, then I am certain, neither is fill-in-the-blank of that type!"

    Some people have implied a reasoning of this sort; others have been more explicit.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  12. #12
    Logos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,407
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat View Post
    Another - for which a clear case hasn't been made yet on this thread, but I'd like to hear one - is when people go, "I am sure fill-in-the-blank and myself (or another fill-in-the-blank) are identicals! If fill-in-the-blank isn't a fill-in-the-blank, then I am certain, neither is fill-in-the-blank of that type!"

    Some people have implied a reasoning of this sort; others have been more explicit.
    Such thinking is rather stupid as the person may not agree, seeing things from your own personal bias, and you in fact may merely be projecting your own values on them.
    "Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
    Johari Box

  13. #13
    force my hand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    2,332
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat View Post
    Where do you stand?
    I trust that those who appear consistent and exhibit fluid use of the theory are probably a good guide for this sort of thing. Of course, it also makes sense to remember there is error in everything.

  14. #14
    Éminence grise mikemex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Third Planet
    TIM
    IEE-Ne
    Posts
    1,637
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    How can a method be better than others if there is no way to (dis)prove the conclusion? Is there a way to be certain about a type without going trough "opinions"?
    [] | NP | 3[6w5]8 so/sp | Type thread | My typing of forum members | Johari (Strengths) | Nohari (Weaknesses)

    You know what? You're an individual, and that makes people nervous. And it's gonna keep making people nervous for the rest of your life.
    - Ole Golly from Harriet, the spy.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •