Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: Troubleshooting typing flaws

Hybrid View

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    907
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Troubleshooting typing flaws.

    I am stumped when it comes to typing a friend of mine. So now I need some methods or ideas to help me troubleshoot the typing process. The problem in this case is that the functions of this person, when it comes to weaknesses and strengths, do not fully or accurately match the type descriptions. If you made a new socionics description for this person it would be a mix of a few different types.

    How do you guys go about typing someone? Do you have a specific method? Is there some area(s) you concentrate on, like in trying to define the PoLR or base function for example?

    If you wrote a a short and specific step by step guide to typing for someone already familiar with the socionics basics, what would it look like?

    What do you do when you have typed someone as accurately as you can, but that type description on wikisocion, Filatova etc. is not very accurate or convincing, but still the best match out of all the type descriptions?
    INFp

    If your sea chart does not match reality, go with reality (Old mariner saying)



  2. #2
    UDP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    "Come with me if you want to live"
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    14,907
    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    This isn't a direct answer, per se, but it's what came to mind:

    What really affects typing is experience with different kinds of people. Over time, you realize how people interact with you, in terms of your own functional values and their functional values. That's what really is going on.

    You eventually develop your own model of understanding functional values and interactions, and what different temperments look like to you. And you realize more and more over time how people vary in terms of type; meeting multiple people of the same type helps with this a great deal.

    Over time, you can recognize people merely by appearance - though it has to do with many things like posture, presence, and so on. I particularly find someone's voice to be very telling and very revealing --- I can hear unvalued Si, Fe, Te, and the like. But those things come with experience.

  3. #3
    UDP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    "Come with me if you want to live"
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    14,907
    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wittmont View Post
    How do you guys go about typing someone? Do you have a specific method? Is there some area(s) you concentrate on, like in trying to define the PoLR or base function for example?
    I don't think its useful to 'try' to look at something specifically, but what seems to happen in reality is something will be particularly noticeable. Do they respond well to Fe? What is there energy level, and what affects their energy level? Start from the most glaring things about the person and then go from there. Eliminate what is most unlikely, and you get closer and closer to the type.

    If you wrote a a short and specific step by step guide to typing for someone already familiar with the socionics basics, what would it look like?
    Study socionics, think about it over time, gain experience. And really, really check yourself, especially at first, to make sure your understanding of the functions is right. Eventually, you see more and more consistency, and people's types become more and more clear. Also, put more focus on real life experience than anything here on the forum or you've read in terms of profiles or functional explanations. You have to figure out what "Se leading" really means to you in your own terms first, and then you'll understand more what articles about it/other things really mean.


    What do you do when you have typed someone as accurately as you can, but that type description on wikisocion, Filatova etc. is not very accurate or convincing, but still the best match out of all the type descriptions?
    Heh, I didn't even see this question when I wrote the above.

    The descriptions are people's attempts at reality. You will be able to comprehend types and the socionics system yourself, but you must develop that understanding in reality, and not based off of 'reading'. You can't really learn how to ride a bike or dance only from reading a book, you have to practice and 'feel' what its like.

    As your own understanding grows, using profiles and other outside sources is less needed (although that doesn't imply that I think they are "needed" in the first place). They can be useful in explaining or offering insight, but that depends on how good they are, and how much your interpretation of the words that were written actually match with the authors intent, and more fundamental than that is the author's actual amount of understanding. So you have to keep all that in mind. For example, the author might be writing something "properly", but, because they are a different type or quadra than you, and you have different experiences and connotations, it might not convey the correct meaning. So there's a lot of trouble wrapped up in all of that.


    Mmm... Socionics is a tool that helps you by giving you terminology for things that already exist without socionics being there. It's useful to keep that in mind. You have to find out what those things really are, before applying socionics terminology to them. Theories and assumptions and ideas made when there is no real understanding of what those things are - such is generally useless and misleading, as they are derived from untruth. (This is the same problem you will come across in many fields of study).

  4. #4
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,418
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    dichotomies
    relationship
    main function
    compare with others

    stay away from things like, what is his polr, or his hidden agenda function etc. that's about the same as trying to VI someone by looking at his elbow. Focus on the important parts. (as noted here above)

  5. #5
    six turnin', four burnin' stevENTj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    DC area, US
    TIM
    Te-INTp (ILI)
    Posts
    768
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Nothing ever fits exactly. It was a bear to try and type me. Most people here were convinced and even had me convinced that I was an ENTj, but I'm really an INTp at the core. Just an INTp that can emulate a good ENTj for awhile.

    A big help was identifying the PoLR function. I couldn't relate at all to the PoLR or Hidden Agenda function for an ENTj. PoLR I was clearly , which narrowed it down to either ISTp or INTp. Always strong N, so INTp it is. I could pass for an ISTp at times, along with an ENTj. Sometimes the critical knowledge to type someone can only come deep from within themselves, as they're the only ones who truly know how they think and how their brains operate. I had an in-depth discussion and comparison on this once with Expat where he described how his EJ mind operates and then I how I operate, and finally realized I was truly IP temperament, but just pretty good at being an EJ also. Most of the time I'm IP, but when I need to I can freely go into kick-ass EJ mode without too many problems and be comfortable doing so.

    The person you're trying to type also has to be TRUE to themselves. If they're in any sort of stressful situation, forget it. Typing yourself or others while under any sort of stress just leads to wildly inaccurate thoughts and conclusions. Whatever you think you might be while under stress is pretty much a guarantee that that's NOT what you are. In a very stressful situation I once thought I was an INFp. HA HA! Not hardly, but the stressful situation was forcing me to try to use which INTps absolutely suck at - it's their PoLR - which just happened to be the cause of the stress!
    Te-INTp/ILI, my wife: Fi-ISFj/ESI, with laser beam death rays for ESTp/SLEs, lol
    16 years of bliss in an Activity relationship

  6. #6
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,418
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stevENTj View Post
    Sometimes the critical knowledge to type someone can only come deep from within themselves, as they're the only ones who truly know how they think and how their brains operate.
    This is where my opinion is different. Introspection is known to be unreliable. Looking inside yourself to 'find' the process of functions is not as good as simply looking at the outside how you behave. If you look at people's behaviour it's more obvious which type they are, then when trying to look at which functions they have on 'the inside'. Theoretically it sounds better, but in practice it doesn't work. Just my experience...

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    moon
    Posts
    4,848
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    some people seem more aware of subtle unconscious ques which help them to penetrate a persons internal frame of mind.. like what Ryu describes. Others seem more action oriented and behavior oriented. I prefer the first method. I dont see a clear correlation between this and valued functions

  8. #8
    The Looks stanprollyright's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    In your pants
    TIM
    IEE-Ne cp 6w7 sx/so
    Posts
    555
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarno View Post
    This is where my opinion is different. Introspection is known to be unreliable. Looking inside yourself to 'find' the process of functions is not as good as simply looking at the outside how you behave. If you look at people's behaviour it's more obvious which type they are, then when trying to look at which functions they have on 'the inside'. Theoretically it sounds better, but in practice it doesn't work. Just my experience...
    There are four parts to the psyche: the part that everyone knows, the part that you know but others don't, the part that others can see but you don't know about, and the part that no one sees or knows about. Socionics is about taking information from the first three and uncovering the last one. Basically, both introspection and behavioral observations are required for a sound typing.
    Stan is not my real name.

  9. #9
    six turnin', four burnin' stevENTj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    DC area, US
    TIM
    Te-INTp (ILI)
    Posts
    768
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarno View Post
    This is where my opinion is different. Introspection is known to be unreliable. Looking inside yourself to 'find' the process of functions is not as good as simply looking at the outside how you behave. If you look at people's behaviour it's more obvious which type they are, then when trying to look at which functions they have on 'the inside'. Theoretically it sounds better, but in practice it doesn't work. Just my experience...
    If you're not looking at the whole picture as completely and as honestly as you can you're not going to be as accurate. I might behave outwardly more as an EJ, yet I'm really an IP. And only I could know that since I'm the only one that has access to my inner thought patterns and process. My wife would appear more as an EJ to most, yet is really an IJ.
    Te-INTp/ILI, my wife: Fi-ISFj/ESI, with laser beam death rays for ESTp/SLEs, lol
    16 years of bliss in an Activity relationship

  10. #10
    Trevor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,840
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Great post, ryu.

  11. #11
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE
    Posts
    24,507
    Mentioned
    60 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think the two most common errors/difficulties in typing people are:

    1.) Incorrectly identifying quadra values do to incorrectly typed benchmarks, especially oneself.
    2.) Assuming that a person's most apparent functions are in their ego block.
    SEE

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

  12. #12
    The Looks stanprollyright's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    In your pants
    TIM
    IEE-Ne cp 6w7 sx/so
    Posts
    555
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Another big flaw is typing people based on how comfortable you think your relationship is. Firstly: you have to be completely positive of your type before you can determine theirs based on relationship. Secondly: interpersonal relationships are complicated and involve a lot of different factors that have nothing to do with type. Just because you are good friends with them doesn't mean they are in your quadra, and just because you dislike them doesn't make them the opposite quadra. There are certain calls you can make, however. Your best friend who you love to do all sorts of different activities with and shares your opinions about everything probably isn't your conflictor.
    Stan is not my real name.

  13. #13
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,418
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Joy View Post
    I think the two most common errors/difficulties in typing people are:


    2.) Assuming that a person's most apparent functions are in their ego block.
    haha. why is it fun to say something obviously contradicting. Ego block ARE the most apparent functions.

  14. #14
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE
    Posts
    24,507
    Mentioned
    60 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarno View Post
    haha. why is it fun to say something obviously contradicting. Ego block ARE the most apparent functions.
    In well adjusted people who have had their ego block rewarded, yes. Such is not always the case though. Sometimes the most apparent function is the role or PoLR, for example. It's not a "proper" use of these information elements, but it's still what jumps out at you.
    SEE

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

  15. #15
    Creepy-male

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Joy View Post
    In well adjusted people who have had their ego block rewarded, yes. Such is not always the case though. Sometimes the most apparent function is the role or PoLR, for example. It's not a "proper" use of these information elements, but it's still what jumps out at you.
    This is true. I think most people thought my first posts were laden with Ti, but now Glamourama and Carla at least notice that I'm a horrible, unabashed Fi spammer.

    Sorry, Carla >:

    With that in mind, I think the Role function is also a side-effect of being strong in the same domain, just with a different focus. EIIs then have many of the same problems as LIIs with what Brilliand calls "nihilism", or getting stuck balancing IJ sorts of things--in my case, principles (and I feel really cheesy saying that, but I do have an almost cancerous super-ego), my sentiments, the correct course of action (I will confess to get stuck just deliberating endlessly and not feeling comfortable actually doing the doing part ); for LIIs, their logical lego bricks (and probably a lot more. LIIs, please fill this in!) IOW, XIIs are both influenced by a more general "IJ" + Ne sort of thing, it's just that EIIs will tend towards the human element, and LIIs to the information side. I hope I managed to make that make sense.

    On a related note, I notice that LSEs tend to have a lot of outward emotional energy, or that ILEs can be really motivated and focused on achievement (hence why I keep wanting to retype my ILE friend ESTx).

    Random tangential conclusion: temperament is probably more apparent, then you can narrow that down to a base function based on what ideas they deal with. Does that make me LII?

    But yeah, I think that one can present their role more comfortably than their base at first as well, especially if that's what's been taught. Case-in-point, being trained by school to structure my thinking and my writing, which comes through in my posts (and a lot less in real life, where I find it easier to just do a tangled epic dump, just like what Errant said about having all his thoughts in a big tangled mess of string (though my analogy was "juggling onions". Same diff!))

    That said, while your Role is your trained social face, any PoLR usage is probably blustering. I can't help but wonder if this is related to Expat's "pathetic HA"--I see parallels with trying to persuade yourself that you can do your PoLR. Or, rather, I suppose, that your Creative is far more flexible and confident than it actually is. I think this is what labcoat referred to as being "robust"... the Creative is just a showy bastard, since he's the guy who interacts with the world outside. The boss dude chilling in the back--the one who *knows* he's in charge and doesn't need to show off--is your base.

    I don't expect this post to make much sense

  16. #16
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE
    Posts
    24,507
    Mentioned
    60 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coolanzon View Post
    Random tangential conclusion: temperament is probably more apparent, then you can narrow that down to a base function based on what ideas they deal with. Does that make me LII?
    No. It's what I've been doing with people in this group I'm in. We interview each other about our personal and professional interests and goals, and upon mentioning Socionics, people always ask what it is. Upon describing it, they always ask what type I think they are. I usually start with temperament and then narrow it down from there.

    It's much easier with some than with others though.
    SEE

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

  17. #17
    Waddlesworth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,159
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wittmont View Post
    I am stumped when it comes to typing a friend of mine. So now I need some methods or ideas to help me troubleshoot the typing process. The problem in this case is that the functions of this person, when it comes to weaknesses and strengths, do not fully or accurately match the type descriptions. If you made a new socionics description for this person it would be a mix of a few different types.

    How do you guys go about typing someone? Do you have a specific method? Is there some area(s) you concentrate on, like in trying to define the PoLR or base function for example?

    If you wrote a a short and specific step by step guide to typing for someone already familiar with the socionics basics, what would it look like?

    What do you do when you have typed someone as accurately as you can, but that type description on wikisocion, Filatova etc. is not very accurate or convincing, but still the best match out of all the type descriptions?
    The problem is that there are many different methods of typing which all inevitably lead to contradictory results.

    What is type? Is type based upon a test? Someone else's supposed expertise?

    Alright, if it is based upon a test, what type of test? There are different kinds of tests. You can give a person 10 different types of test and they could easily yield more than one result, though all of these results will claim to be sociotype. So which is it?

    Well, then you stroll on round the corner and ask an 'expert'... but then you want a second opinion, so you go to another expert and they do indeed give you a second opinion, so then what?

    And then often we think we know someone's type, but then we change our minds and think they may be another type. Problem here is that our understanding of type in one person is interdependent with our understanding of type in another person. So we have congnitive dissonance about type in others/ourselves, since admitting we are wrong about one person means we are likely wrong about someone else. We tend to be conservative with changing our minds(for many reasons) and that makes us therefore less likely to abandon socionics for the unscientific, self-limiting, judgement-based system that it is.

    If you are unsure about a person's type it means that you do not understand socionics. If you understood socionics you would not have trouble typing people.

    Not worth asking people for help on this, because none of them can prove socionics/type is real, either. If someone can prove type/the validity of socionics I would like to see them demonstrate this.

    Fact is no one here can and everyone is just lying and pretending.

Posting Permissions

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