Female ESI faces: examples of ISFjs

[Azeroffs]

If you defined a type as someone who looks a certain way, it wouldn't be a hypothesis based on the observation that some type-pair relationships are more beneficial than others.

Do you really think the stand-alone behavior of a type has anything to do with intertype-theory?

edit: Well it is somewhat relate, but intertype-theory is based primarily on how they communicate to each other and only partially on actual behaviors.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

No - type descriptions are derived from lower-level parts of the theory, that is the elements and dichotomies, and the abstract concepts behind those. The abstract system of Socionics isn't terribly applicable to daily life, but it can be used to produce practical materials that aren't limited to the practical usefulness of previous practical materials.

I would say that the type descriptions in their ideal form are roughly congruous with those "lower-level parts of the theory".

If VI has a 25% correspondence with actual types as fit the underlying theory and descriptions have a 20% correspondence with the same, then VI is 125% as good (25%/20%).

If VI has a 25% correspondence with descriptions and descriptions have a 2o% correspondence with the actual types as fit the underlying theory, then VI will have an actual success rate of (25% x 20% + k x 80%) = anywhere between 5% and 85%.

To calculate the accuracy of typing via VI, the VI success rate has to be multiplied by the success rate of typing via type descriptions because the VI success rate is determined by how much it matches with the typings derived by using type descriptions, because the types provide the inspiration behind which the VI descriptions were made (A set of VI descriptions and a set of IM-based descriptions would be two distinct sets of descriptions supposedly describing the same thing).

[Socionics Is A Cult]

Do you really think the stand-alone behavior of a type has anything to do with intertype-theory?

Yes, because the types were identified based on an intertype theory.

[Azeroffs]

To calculate the accuracy of typing via VI, the VI success rate has to be multiplied by the success rate of typing via type descriptions because the VI success rate is determined by how much it matches with the typings derived by using type descriptions, because the types provide the inspiration behind which the VI descriptions were made.

There's no reason why the success rate of typing derived from descriptions cannot be corrected by VI. Your logic is flawed.

Why would you want to (socionics) type someone based on their behaviour or on VI anyway? Why not sit down with them and find out how they process information? Ask them about the sorts of people that they feel most at ease with? Etc.

Maybe you want to know their type before you waste time with them

[Azeroffs]

Yes, because the types were identified based on an intertype theory.

So behavior has to do with intertype theory because the types were identified based on intertype theory? that doesn't make sense.

sorry I may have been unclear. I'm talking about typing based on how someone behaves apart from how you interact with them.


Trying to clear things up..
socionics type = thinking processes

Thinking process --> behaviors
Thinking process --> VI

If behaviors didn't vary, VI and behavior would be on equal grounds, but behaviors do change and vary from type to type while the VI characteristics do not. So, VI is more reliable.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

There's no reason why the success rate of typing derived from descriptions cannot be corrected by VI. Your logic is flawed.

It is your logic that is flawed. If the "improved" VI model tells you that a person is one type and yet you know from the theory that they are not that type, then how can VI correct anything? It is a person's brain that determines their personality, not their external appearance...you coud remove a person's skull entirely but you could never remove their brain without killing them.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

So behavior has to do with intertype theory because the types were identified based on intertype theory? that doesn't make sense.

sorry I may have been unclear. I'm talking about typing based on how someone behaves apart from how you interact with them.

I'm saying that the types wouldn't exist at all without intertype theory. With intertype theory, it became clear that the information elements can run on a spectrum, and that a certain type of behaviour could be classed under a particular type of information element.

[Azeroffs]

It is your logic that is flawed. If the "improved" VI model tells you that a person is one type and yet you know from the theory that they are not that type, then how can VI correct anything?

You can't know a persons type by use of any theory. That's the point. Nothing is 100%.

It is a person's brain that determines their personality, not their external appearance...you coud remove a person's skull entirely but you could never remove their brain without killing them.

There is no way we can access the brain. At least not with any known means. Behavior and intertype relations are no exception.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

You can't know a persons type by use of any theory. That's the point. Nothing is 100%.

I know. But my point is that a VI typing strategy can never be completely indepedent of typing via the aid of IM-based type descriptions, while typing via the of IM-based type descriptions can be independent of a VI typing strategy.

There is no way we can access the brain. At least not with any known means. Behavior and intertype relations are no exception.

I disagree.

[Azeroffs]

I'm saying that the types wouldn't exist at all without intertype theory. With intertype theory, it became clear that the information elements can run on a spectrum, and that a certain type of behaviour could be classed under a particular type of information element.

Just because intertype relations and behaviors associated with type came first does not mean that VI is less accurate. Say for example 300 people were discovered to be ISTj through behavior, and then 290 of them had similar physical features found to be related to type, and the other 10 did not have this feature. It is reasonable to consider that we were wrong about those 10.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

Just because intertype relations and behaviors associated with type came first does not mean that VI is less accurate. Say for example 300 people were discovered to be ISTj through behavior, and then 290 of them had similar physical features found to be related to type, and the other 10 did not have this feature. It is reasonable to consider that we were wrong about those 10.

It can never be proved either way because determining an individual's type by any strategy is not a black and white thing which can ever be determined definitively. You would never be able to tell which people are the outliers - it is daft to suggest that if you discovered that ISTjs actually had longer chins than previously thought that you wouldn't know whether to determine that those individuals weren't ISTjs or whether the type descriptions were in need of modification.

[Azeroffs]

I know. But my point is that a VI typing strategy can never be completely indepedent of typing via the aid of IM-based type descriptions, while typing via the of IM-based type descriptions can be independent of a VI typing strategy.

Typing based on IMs is different than typing based on behaviors. You're changing your argument. Typing based on IMs includes both behaviors and VI characteristics.

I disagree.

Similar behaviors can result from different thought processes and opposite behaviors can result from the same thought process. So it should be obvious that behavior is not reliable. Intertype relations I would agree is a decent way of measuring it at least if socionics is true, but still it is only as a result of the thought process and not the thought process itself that is being observed, so you are still not accessing the brain.

[xkj220]

Some of you guys seem to be thinking that VI is some sort of thing that is "tailored", that can be objectively measured and counted. Like for instance, this guy has a hook-shaped nose, so he's an NT; that woman has full lips, so she's IEI, etc. That's not how it works at all (at least not in my case). It's more of a general impression that comes all at once, and particularly when you look at the eyes of the person.

[xkj220]

Participate! http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...xperiment.html

That's too friggin' hard =P . Someday I'll be able to complete that task successfully...

Anyways, it could all be a bunch of crap, but so far I seem to be scoring some hits. Thus, I personally think there is something to it. I have no intention of convincing anyone of my possibly subjective delusions.

[Azeroffs]

Azeroffs, you've totally lost the bigger picture. Do you really think that anyone else gives a shit what type you think they are? They don't. They only care about how they process information and the sorts of people that they feel compatible or at ease with. If you want to go and stick some sort of label on someone because of the gaze in their eyes or because of the way in which they walk, then go for it, but it's your loss at an otherwise potentially good interaction or relationship if you decide to not associate with people based on the way in which they "VI" and it leads you to an incorrect interpretation of them; not theirs.

If they care about how their thought process works, then they should care about a reliable method in which to find that out. Finding it out through interaction alone takes a long time, and depends too much on the typing of those that are interacting, also it's difficult to be objective about it when you are one of parties involved. Behavior alone is unreliable because there is no one thing that is strongly indicative and it can change. VI remains as the single most most reliable method.

It can never be proved either way because determining an individual's type by any strategy is not a black and white thing which can ever be determined definitively. You would never be able to tell which people are the outliers - it is daft to suggest that if you discovered that ISTjs actually had longer chins than previously thought that you wouldn't know whether to determine that those individuals weren't ISTjs or whether the type descriptions were in need of modification.

No one would claim that anything is "proved" by any method. I'm just saying that VI is more reliable. Not that a chin size would be a definitive VI characteristic, but why is it daft to think that a VI characteristic would be more indicative than a behavior?

[ArchonAlarion]

Why would you want to (socionics) type someone based on their behaviour or on VI anyway? Why not find out how they actually process information? About the sorts of people that they feel most at ease with? Etc.

1. How are you going to figure out how someone processes information (and no, i'm not implying you can't)?

2. Why is type a purely non-physiological trait? If type is genetic (the only reasonable possibility), then it would make sense if facial structure is affected, not to mention expressions.

3. If you find that people who process information similarly also "VI" similar (or the most fun, when you find people who VI similar that also process information similarly), why would you ignore expansion of VI typing methodology (practice makes perfect)?

4. VI is reliable because it is something you can't hide. Personality and behavior is too dynamic and fluxuating to be reliable. VI is "static". Unchanging. At the very least, you can correlate people who VI similarly, even if you don't know their type, and later figure out what the set of people's exact type is. VI is not a great indication of type in itself, but rather, a good indication of identical relationships (So and so VI's like So and So, they are the same type, but what type is that?).

5. The best material for typing will always be speaking to someone in person, and next to that, watching a video of someone. I would never recommend purely "static VI" (VIing from a picture) if other primary source information is available.

[Azeroffs]

And I'm trying to tell you that if some quack told me that I'm an "INTj" because of the way that I walked or "gazed" then I'd laugh them out of the room. Give me something a little more tangible and fundamental to what socionics was built on, like an understanding of what people mean when they talk about the information elements and Model A any day, thanks. I'll work out my own "type" from there.

If the method works then obviously the typer is wrong, not the method. I'm not about to argue whether or not the theory is true because I don't know enough about it. Only that if it can do what it claims it can do, it is more reliable.

[ArchonAlarion]

And I'm trying to tell you that if some quack told me that I'm an "INTj" because of the way in which I walked or gazed then I'd laugh them out of the room. Give me something a little more tangible and fundamental to what socionics was built on, like an understanding of what people mean when they talk about the information elements and Model A any day, thanks. I'll work out my own type from there.

Physical appearance is pretty damn tangible, as is "gaze" and movement. Those things are unchanging aspects of people (as pertains to VI) and came about due to inherent genetics and/or living within your type every single second of your life. Much of communication is conveyed through the body and expressions.

I think its more "quack-like" to adhere dogmatically to some pseudo-science model, which has less "tangible" and observable/measurable evidence to point to than VI.

Not to say that Socionics has no effect on psychology, which is obviously not my point.

[Azeroffs]

1. How are you going to figure out how someone processes information (and no, i'm not implying you can't)?

2. Why is type a purely non-physiological trait? If type is genetic (the only reasonable possibility), then it would make sense if facial structure is affected, not to mention expressions.

3. If you find that people who process information similarly also "VI" similar (or the most fun, when you find people who VI similar that also process information similarly), why would you ignore expansion of VI typing methodology (practice makes perfect)?

4. VI is reliable because it is something you can't hide. Personality and behavior is too dynamic and fluxuating to be reliable. VI is "static". Unchanging. At the very least, you can correlate people who VI similarly, even if you don't know their type, and later figure out what the set of people's exact type is. VI is not a great indication of type in itself, but rather, a good indication of identical relationships (So and so VI's like So and So, they are the same type, but what type is that?).

5. The best material for typing will always be speaking to someone in person, and next to that, watching a video of someone. I would never recommend purely "static VI" (VIing from a picture) if other primary source information is available.

thank jesus, aka ArchonAlarion

[Brilliand]

I would say that the type descriptions in their ideal form are roughly congruous with those "lower-level parts of the theory".

In their ideal form, they are 100% accurate. The point is that we do not have 100% accurate descriptions... so they are not on equal terms with the lower-level parts of the theory.

To calculate the accuracy of typing via VI, the VI success rate has to be multiplied by the success rate of typing via type descriptions because the VI success rate is determined by how much it matches with the typings derived by using type descriptions, because the types provide the inspiration behind which the VI descriptions were made (A set of VI descriptions and a set of IM-based descriptions would be two distinct sets of descriptions supposedly describing the same thing).

Then what do you say about the people who we don't succeed in finding types for via the descriptions? They don't have types? We can test the VI effectiveness by comparing it with behavioral typings, within a certain margin of error, but the fact that we test it that way doesn't mean that it can't be right where the behavioral typings are wrong.

Actually, we wouldn't test VI by comparison with behavioral typing directly; rather, we would test it by comparison with a consensus typing from many methods (behavioral, intertype and functions from self-image come to mind), which would give a greater degree of accuracy than any one method. Additionally, by induction, we may discover patterns of VI that work even when all previous methods of typing fail.

[ArchonAlarion]

But your interpretation and overlay of a type onto those things is not!

Can you elaborate on this? i don't quite understand what you mean...

[Brilliand]

I'd expect VI to have some merit, because lifestyles resulting from function preferences have certain effects on the body. However, I don't think that it's genetic... so I'd expect unusual external pressures to sometimes have more effect on looks than type-related effects. Physical appearance is a very external thing, that has to be molded to fit the environment.

In general I don't think that VI can rise above being a quick way to get a somewhat educated guess as to what someone's type might be (to be verified later by more accurate methods, if the VI is promising enough).

[Azeroffs]

But your interpretation and overlay of a type onto those things is not!

This doesn't change anything. You're gong to be interpreting no matter what you do. It's not specific to VIing.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

Typing based on IMs is different than typing based on behaviors. You're changing your argument. Typing based on IMs includes both behaviors and VI characteristics.

False; the information elements are solely to do with how information is processed.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

No one would claim that anything is "proved" by any method. I'm just saying that VI is more reliable. Not that a chin size would be a definitive VI characteristic, but why is it daft to think that a VI characteristic would be more indicative than a behavior?

As I've said many times, a VI typing strategy cannot be more reliable than typing via the IMs. Think about it - if the 16 types were derived from observation of physical characteristics first, and then linked to personality traits, it would be a different theory to socionics altogether.

And...if you only know about the 16 types to begin with because of observation of the information elements in people, then to test the accuracy of VI would require you knowing (beyond all doubt) a person's type via an analysis of how the individual uses information elements. As you cannot possibly get more certain than "beyond all doubt", typing via VI cannot be more reliable than typing via the information elements.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

1. How are you going to figure out how someone processes information (and no, i'm not implying you can't)?

By interacting and\or observing them perhaps?

2. Why is type a purely non-physiological trait? If type is genetic (the only reasonable possibility), then it would make sense if facial structure is affected, not to mention expressions.

I don't think anyone said that type is purely a non-physiological trait - it's just that a person's personality must neccesarily always be at the centre of any personality typology.

3. If you find that people who process information similarly also "VI" similar (or the most fun, when you find people who VI similar that also process information similarly), why would you ignore expansion of VI typing methodology (practice makes perfect)?

It is being debated here whether typing via VI is more reliable than typing via an analysis of the way a person processes information. If you find out that a particular type is more likely to wear red shoes than another type and that makes you happy, then go for it!

4. VI is reliable because it is something you can't hide. Personality and behavior is too dynamic and fluxuating to be reliable. VI is "static". Unchanging. At the very least, you can correlate people who VI similarly, even if you don't know their type, and later figure out what the set of people's exact type is. VI is not a great indication of type in itself, but rather, a good indication of identical relationships (So and so VI's like So and So, they are the same type, but what type is that?).

I would argue that VI IS something that you can hide, and that it isn't static. Your argument that personality and behaviour is "too dynamic and fluxuating to be reliable" has an obvious flaw - if that is true, then determining a person's type by any method is unreliable - the types ARE, after all, expressions of particular types of personality, and typing via VI is inherently more flawed than typing by an analysis of a person's personality traits. You are basically saying "your system is flawed, let's make it even more unreliable!".

5. The best material for typing will always be speaking to someone in person, and next to that, watching a video of someone. I would never recommend purely "static VI" (VIing from a picture) if other primary source information is available.

I agree that speaking with someone in person is better than other strategies for now, but I would not say that it will necessarily always be the best way of typing someone.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

In their ideal form, they are 100% accurate. The point is that we do not have 100% accurate descriptions... so they are not on equal terms with the lower-level parts of the theory.

I suppose that is true. But the descriptions spell out the functions in operational format into human speak - remember that real people who resembled these descriptions were observed, and then the "lower-level parts of the theory" were fleshed out.

Then what do you say about the people who we don't succeed in finding types for via the descriptions? They don't have types?

What of them? The same could apply for any VI typing strategy as well.

We can test the VI effectiveness by comparing it with behavioral typings, within a certain margin of error, but the fact that we test it that way doesn't mean that it can't be right where the behavioral typings are wrong.

Actually, we wouldn't test VI by comparison with behavioral typing directly; rather, we would test it by comparison with a consensus typing from many methods (behavioral, intertype and functions from self-image come to mind), which would give a greater degree of accuracy than any one method. Additionally, by induction, we may discover patterns of VI that work even when all previous methods of typing fail.

If you test the effectiveness of VI by comparing VI-garnered typings with ones derived from behavioural typings, the test would be inherently flawed. It could not tell you which strategy was most correct.

If all the experts told you that 16 people all had the behavioural traits that made them most likely to be all INTjs while the VI experiment told you that the 16 people are ISTjs...how would that help you? You would have to presume that the people were (probably) all INTjs...or maybe I'm biased.

Even then, it would not 'prove' that the INTj personality was a distinct personality in the same sense that the Earth is a distinct body.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

I'd expect VI to have some merit, because lifestyles resulting from function preferences have certain effects on the body. However, I don't think that it's genetic... so I'd expect unusual external pressures to sometimes have more effect on looks than type-related effects. Physical appearance is a very external thing, that has to be molded to fit the environment.

There have been studies of identical twins which show that apart from looking extremely similar from a distance away, they also look incredibly similar at a closer level - for example, having moles and wrinkles in exactly the same places and so on.

[Azeroffs]

False; the information elements are solely to do with how information is processed.

You seem to be missing the point. The goal of typing is to find out what the IMs are, in this you are correct. I'm not arguing against that. I'm arguing against using behavior as a means to figure out what the IMs are.

As I've said many times, a VI typing strategy cannot be more reliable than typing via the IMs. Think about it - if the 16 types were derived from observation of physical characteristics first, and then linked to personality traits, it would be a different theory to socionics altogether.

Again.. typing IMs means using any method including VI. Personality traits =/= IMs. If it were that simple, typing would be as easy as an MBTI test.

And...if you only know about the 16 types to begin with because of observation of the information elements in people, then to test the accuracy of VI would require you knowing (beyond all doubt) a person's type via an analysis of how the individual uses information elements. As you cannot possibly get more certain than "beyond all doubt", typing via VI cannot be more reliable than typing via the information elements.

You cannot observe IMs. They are in the brain only.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

Again.. typing IMs means using any method including VI. Personality traits =/= IMs. If it were that simple, typing would be as easy as an MBTI test.

...the information elements have never had any established connection with physiology.

You cannot observe IMs. They are in the brain only.

That's not true. Things in the brain can be observed.

[Azeroffs]

By interacting and\or observing them perhaps?

This does not show you how they process information. Only the result of it.

I don't think anyone said that type is purely a non-physiological trait - it's just that a person's personality must neccesarily always be at the centre of any personality typology.

Socionics has become more than purely personality typology. It is trying to explain how people process information and then secondarily the personality that results from that.

It is being debated here whether typing via VI is more reliable than typing via an analysis of the way a person processes information. If you find out that a particular type is more likely to wear red shoes than another type and that makes you happy, then go for it!

This is false. No one is claiming that typing via IM analysis is less reliable. IM analysis is the ONLY way you can figure out a type. The problem is that you cannot observe IMs directly. Behavior and VI characteristics are typing methods that only look at the reflections of the IMs.

I would argue that VI IS something that you can hide, and that it isn't static. Your argument that personality and behaviour is "too dynamic and fluxuating to be reliable" has an obvious flaw - if that is true, then determining a person's type by any method is unreliable - the types ARE, after all, expressions of particular types of personality, and typing via VI is inherently more flawed than typing by an analysis of a person's personality traits. You are basically saying "your system is flawed, let's make it even more unreliable!".

The types are not making claims directly about personality. They are making claims about information processes and then the personality traits that are likely to result from that.

[Azeroffs]

That's not true. Things in the brain can be observed.

How???

[Socionics Is A Cult]

This does not show you how they process information. Only the result of it.

Not necessarily true. You can observe activity in the brain as an extreme example of an observation.

Socionics has become more than purely personality typology. It is trying to explain how people process information and then secondarily the personality that results from that.

And what does that have to do with physiology?

This is false. No one is claiming that typing via IM analysis is less reliable. IM analysis is the ONLY way you can figure out a type. The problem is that you cannot observe IMs directly. Behavior and VI characteristics are typing methods that only look at the reflections of the IMs.

VI theoretically is directly related to type. All other methods are indirect and subject to opinion and are therefore inaccurate. Skilled VI'er > long term interaction > descriptions.

...

The types are not making claims directly about personality. They are making claims about information processes and then the personality traits that are likely to result from that.

As I said, they are "expressions of particular types of personality".

[Socionics Is A Cult]

How???

Information elements and information aspects could theoretically be correlated with each other for example by observing a person's brain activity while carrying out certain activities.

[Azeroffs]

Not necessarily true. You can observe activity in the brain as an extreme example of an observation.

I'm not sure I understand.

And what does that have to do with physiology?

I don't think anyone said that type is purely a non-physiological trait - it's just that a person's personality must neccesarily always be at the centre of any personality typology.

I wasn't commenting on physiology.

...

VI, interaction, and behavior are all things affected by the IMs. They are all forms of IM analysis.

As I said, they are "expressions of particular types of personality".

right, and the expressions are changeable, and if they are changeable then they are unreliable.

Information elements and information aspects could theoretically be correlated with each other for example by observing a person's brain activity while carrying out certain activities.

Ok, figure out how to do that and we'll have another typing method.


I'm done arguing this here. I didn't mean to derail the thread this bad. If you have more to say, PM me.

[Marie84]

Diane Neal (from Law & Order SVU) - ESI

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Ewww. I HATE women with Te eyes, I want to gouge them out. At least men with Te eyes I can kind of expect that because they also have natural male competitiveness which kinda muddles and molds and dilutes the Te that I don't like anyway. But the Te eyes of women is so like, bitchy and annoying to me and I want to roundhouse kick them in their face or get into fights with them like Glory vs. Buffy. DON'T GET MAD AT ME FOR SAYING THIS, I AM AN INFP AT ALL.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Polikujm is absolutely right, I can FEEL that isfj's bitchiness to me and I can FEEL that man supervising me, all the way across the internets. It's like a lightning bolt of emotion. No offense but some of you frankly need to learn how to be more insightful. ;p

[jughead]

Yes the eyes! They are annoying as shit.

[FDG]

The current Minister of Education in Italy, Mariastella Gelmini:





Here the girl is ESI and the guy is LIE:



kind of used to have a crush on her, but decided that they were too nice of a couple for me to try to break it