Munenori On Why He Is SEI

[BurntOrange]

I definitely agree that I've changed. If I had to characterize that change, for me this is the way I tend to be when I've started to come out of my shell with people and act naturally without trying to make an impression. More coming soon!

Man, I have to fight this all the time. I know how to act to appeal to anyone, but if I fall into the trap of going against just acting naturally I feel a lot less comfortable with myself.

that as well. without meeting people in person, what people write on here doesn't convey the "whole" of them. that was proved so fricken much when meeting blaze and bg. my guess is that 80% of the people here have their type wrong.

I've actually entertained this idea before, but in the end I dismissed it as unlikely. I mean, there are a lot of typings based on vague associations with other people, and I think this forum environment does have an increased susceptibility to this, as it's much harder to be right about these intuitions when just dealing with carefully chosen text and no non-verbal or spur of the moment communication.

Due to that, I have questioned whether a fallacy of circular logic where say we decide that everyone that's like 1 or 2 people are that type, but say they've mistyped themselves/been mistyped and so then we're actually typing a bunch of people of the wrong type because of that initial mistake that we can't see. All people like person X are type Y, and type Y is always like people X because they're all the same and typed that way. It also could happen where we use traits not socionics related to type someone, and therefore the definition of that type becomes trait X. Where person(s) X has trait Z and is type Y, so everyone with trait Z is type Y, and type Y has trait Z because everyone that is that type has it. The logic that lead to that typing paradigm needs to be right or else typing that way is forever based off that initial fallacy.

That said, I pretty quickly dismissed all that as very unlikely because when I considered an objective functional analysis of people without regard for their own typings or other peoples timings, it seemed to match a lot more often than not. Besides, that assumes an overwhelming incompetence in the forum when it comes to considering themselves and their relationships, and is contingent on everyone that has met IRL being completely wrong about what happened their too. IMO the data is easier to read as confirming that we're mostly on the right track than the wrong one at this point, at least to me.

So yeah, I understand where you're coming from but I can't really find any evidence for it. I'd probably randomly guess closer to 80/20 right than 80/20 wrong.

[Wittmont]

Yeah I am more along BurntOrange numbers, but definitely the forum is not perfectly typed so to speak.

[dbmmama]

Man, I have to fight this all the time. I know how to act to appeal to anyone, but if I fall into the trap of going against just acting naturally I feel a lot less comfortable with myself.



I've actually entertained this idea before, but in the end I dismissed it as unlikely. I mean, there are a lot of typings based on vague associations with other people, and I think this forum environment does have an increased susceptibility to this, as it's much harder to be right about these intuitions when just dealing with carefully chosen text and no non-verbal or spur of the moment communication.

Due to that, I have questioned whether a fallacy of circular logic where say we decide that everyone that's like 1 or 2 people are that type, but say they've mistyped themselves/been mistyped and so then we're actually typing a bunch of people of the wrong type because of that initial mistake that we can't see. All people like person X are type Y, and type Y is always like people X because they're all the same and typed that way. It also could happen where we use traits not socionics related to type someone, and therefore the definition of that type becomes trait X. Where person(s) X has trait Z and is type Y, so everyone with trait Z is type Y, and type Y has trait Z because everyone that is that type has it. The logic that lead to that typing paradigm needs to be right or else typing that way is forever based off that initial fallacy.

That said, I pretty quickly dismissed all that as very unlikely because when I considered an objective functional analysis of people without regard for their own typings or other peoples timings, it seemed to match a lot more often than not. Besides, that assumes an overwhelming incompetence in the forum when it comes to considering themselves and their relationships, and is contingent on everyone that has met IRL being completely wrong about what happened their too. IMO the data is easier to read as confirming that we're mostly on the right track than the wrong one at this point, at least to me.

So yeah, I understand where you're coming from but I can't really find any evidence for it. I'd probably randomly guess closer to 80/20 right than 80/20 wrong.

thanks, great to hear from another who has been thinking these thoughts too. it's kinda funny because i wish that there wasn't any interaction between people to figure out their type. that gets in the way. and yet, ironically, it's based on interactions. lol

[Ms. Kensington]

thanks, great to hear from another who has been thinking these thoughts too. it's kinda funny because i wish that there wasn't any interaction between people to figure out their type. that gets in the way. and yet, ironically, it's based on interactions. lol

very au contraire... i feel typing can sometimes only become apparent in interaction.

[dbmmama]

very au contraire... i feel typing only becomes apparent in interaction.

i didn't mean that it didn't. i just *wished* that it didn't.

[Ms. Kensington]

i didn't mean that it didn't. i just *wished* that it didn't.

just edited my strong statement on my own. But why do you wish that? i dont really see why behavior done under certain motivations would be any less valuable than those given under different motivations.

[dbmmama]

just edited my strong statement on my own. But why do you wish that? i dont really see why behavior done under certain motivations would be any less valuable than those given under different motivations.

again, a misunderstanding of meaning...lol.

i don't mean it's not valuable. i mean i have a very hard time knowing how to interact with other's "correctly." and because i'm SO aware of that, i lose any focus on anything else when interacting with someone. i lose all objectivity.

i am better at analyzing and understanding people when i don't interact with them, but observe from afar or near... i like being objective with others that way. but as soon as i personally "get in the mix" that objectivity flies out the window.

[Ms. Kensington]

again, a misunderstanding of meaning...lol.

i don't mean it's not valuable. i mean i have a very hard time knowing how to interact with other's "correctly." and because i'm SO aware of that, i lose any focus on anything else when interacting with someone. i lose all objectivity.

i am better at analyzing and understanding people when i don't interact with them, but observe from afar or near... i like being objective with others that way. but as soon as i personally "get in the mix" that objectivity flies out the window.

well i think i understood you, i'm just asking why your reaction, even if you feel it is not objective, would somehow misconstrue someone else's typing of you. Burnt orange btw is to me not talking about someone's modification of their own behavior, but of traits that are misinterpreted or too heartily attached to a certain type. If you mean only to say that you are not able to type others correctly when you are worrying about how to interact with them, or even that it creates an unpleasant or unsure feeling, then ok.