How does each type approach typing others?

[The Exception]

Here's how I as an LII approach typing others:

My primary method is to see how how their functions are used according to model A. What appears to be their base function? Their creative function? Their PoLR? etc. I also take into account what quadra they best fit into and what their temperament is.

I find this to be me effective than taking a dichotomous approach (Are they more E or I? S or N? T or F? j or p?) although I will do this on occasion, when the first approach still leaves me with a few possibilities.

I do use a comparative method sometimes, where I look to see how the person resembles or differs from someone I know whom I'm certain of their type.

I don't place much emphasis on VI. I never use it alone to type someone. If I have it narrowed down to two types, I might suggest that the person VI's more like type X than type Y but it still doesn't definitively make them type X.

Test results don't mean that much. Just because someone says they test as a certain type doesn't mean they are that type or even close to it. The person may lack the self-awareness or may not understand the questions properly. Some of the tests are poorly written and even someone very self-aware with an understanding of the questions and what they mean could still get a wrong result.

[silverchris9]

I get a mystical impression of a psychic imprint of a vibe, and then the type comes to me in a clairvoyant rush of mystic import.

But seriously, I usually start with a general intuition like "probably beta" or "probably ethical" or "maybe an introvert," and then go on from there using IMs mostly (does this person seem more Fi valuing or Fe valuing, etc.). But it's mostly the starting with a general intuition thing, now that I think about it. It's nice, but I bet it introduces lots of error into the process, because it means that I type people based on my inherently subjective and maybe idiosyncratic ideas of how/what the functions work/feel/are.

[Creepy-male]

I start with VI (mainly to spot their temperament, since that tends to be the most obviously-expressed component of any type imo), and then interview them (or go off "clicks" from conversation history, usually these clicks are key phrases or concepts). Since the visual cues I look for are movements, I can't really do it from still photos. I'm much better at spotting Judicious individuals in this way. The only Decisive types I feel confident in spotting are Ni-bases and SLEs for their respective distinctive gazes.

Failing that, I'll probably look for attitudes and what that means for what their base function is. I can also look at how they respond to Drunk Gul, but that's pretty vague and only really works as a starting point.

I go off vocabulary, visual cues, and intertypes, basically.

[FDG]

I get a mystical impression of a psychic imprint of a vibe, and then the type comes to me in a clairvoyant rush of mystic import.

Same, kind of.

[1981slater]

Same, kind of.

By typing people over and over, you end up spotting types promptly -as in videogames (Command and Conquer, for instance): you put the mouse on a character and some information about him/her shows up. It is insane actually, but that's what nerds are supposed to do...

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

I use VI mostly as physical objective reality cannot lie. But not just one picture I try to get a variety.

I also type that person via their relationships, not their ego identity. It's not who they think they are so much is how they line up against others. One finds themselves via relationship, not ego dwellings.

[Cyrano]

Here's how I as an LII approach typing others:

My primary method is to see how how their functions are used according to model A. What appears to be their base function? Their creative function? Their PoLR? etc. I also take into account what quadra they best fit into and what their temperament is.

I find this to be me effective than taking a dichotomous approach (Are they more E or I? S or N? T or F? j or p?) although I will do this on occasion, when the first approach still leaves me with a few possibilities.

I do use a comparative method sometimes, where I look to see how the person resembles or differs from someone I know whom I'm certain of their type.

I don't place much emphasis on VI. I never use it alone to type someone. If I have it narrowed down to two types, I might suggest that the person VI's more like type X than type Y but it still doesn't definitively make them type X.

Test results don't mean that much. Just because someone says they test as a certain type doesn't mean they are that type or even close to it. The person may lack the self-awareness or may not understand the questions properly. Some of the tests are poorly written and even someone very self-aware with an understanding of the questions and what they mean could still get a wrong result.

Great question. Can you give an example of one that worked for you?

[Suz]

I have to know the person pretty well for me to be able to type them, in other words, I have to have interacted with them a bunch of times AND seen them interacting with others AND seen their reactions to various kinds of situations.

If I have some, but not enough information that way, sometimes I can say what quadra they're from and pinpoint some IM elements.

With enough info I just get a gestalt for who they are and how they approach the world, and like B&D does, most importantly, how they relate to me and others, and compare that to a bunch (not just one) of socionics descriptions. I use recognition of IM elements to help guide this too, but it's the gestalt that really drives this. I have to say, I think this way is the most accurate. The downside again being, I have to know the person WELL. But I'm a relative socionics newbie (have learned tons in the past 6 months though).

Oh, the other thing I've noticed is, some people fit certain types more obviously, and some people are not as clear to type. If someone fits a type more classically, obviously they're going to be easier to type. I think this reflects the continuum of variations within a type, and that is why I disagree with people who moan and groan about how you cant pigeonhole people into 16 categories. There are nuances within the categories.

[Jarno]

1 general vibe
2 comparing behaviour with other types

[Galen]

1. General vibes from videos + photos
2. Analyzing quotes

[greed]

Pretty much what others here have said--go with the information that's most accurate and available and eliminate from there.

If they give off a vibe of a certain type, or if they heavily remind me of someone else who's type I know, I go with that impression first. Additionally, some people have more obvious characteristics than others; if someone's clearly an introvert, for example, that eliminates some possibilities. Obviously, the less a person fits into a stereotype, the harder he/she is to type.

I can't readily pick up on quadra vibes.. don't have enough of a feel for them yet. And Reinin dichotomies don't enter the picture for me, as I'm fairly certain that many of my supposed dichotomies don't match--I would be hard-pressed to correctly identify someone else with them. I also often have trouble identifying what functions a person might value.

What I can pick up on is how readily I can talk to them. If we have a pretty good understanding of each other almost immediately, we could be identicals or kindreds, for example.

Sometimes I combine approaches that might yield different results, then try to reconcile them.

So, yeah.. a mish-mash of methods, I guess.

[Jarno]

1. General vibes from videos + photos
2. Analyzing quotes

This sounds like you spent too much time on the internet. '-)

[ashlesha]

inspired by johannes' type thread, where people are discussing his method of typing in relation to whether he's IEE or ILE.
i know its been discussed a lot but i only remember ever seeing it in the context of "intuitives go more by hunches" and "logical types substantiate their ideas more" etc. and maybe we are at a stage where we can have a more interesting conversation about it.

how would you group the types in terms of how they go about typing others - by quadra? by social club? by cognitive style? do you have any examples from around the forum to illustrate your opinions about it?

[InvisibleJim]

I think VI by food is the best way.

[mu4]

Since I'm an individual capable of more then one function.

I get impressions about type which come to me naturally, but I don't trust those. I research individuals and their verbalization and communications which leads me to other impressions which may or may not eliminate my initial impression, once I have identify some what I would consider significant similarity to some acceptable individual who has been sufficiently analyzed by another socionicist(self reference is not effective imo), they can be more conclusively associated as similar individuals. Beyond this would require either observing their inter-type relations with other analyzed individuals(which may require a new evaluation process for these individuals). Then test them merciless forever... and ever and ever... Tears even!

[Amber]

Here's how I as an LII approach typing others:

My primary method is to see how how their functions are used according to model A. What appears to be their base function? Their creative function? Their PoLR? etc. I also take into account what quadra they best fit into and what their temperament is.

I find this to be me effective than taking a dichotomous approach (Are they more E or I? S or N? T or F? j or p?) although I will do this on occasion, when the first approach still leaves me with a few possibilities.

I do use a comparative method sometimes, where I look to see how the person resembles or differs from someone I know whom I'm certain of their type.

I don't place much emphasis on VI. I never use it alone to type someone. If I have it narrowed down to two types, I might suggest that the person VI's more like type X than type Y but it still doesn't definitively make them type X.

Test results don't mean that much. Just because someone says they test as a certain type doesn't mean they are that type or even close to it. The person may lack the self-awareness or may not understand the questions properly. Some of the tests are poorly written and even someone very self-aware with an understanding of the questions and what they mean could still get a wrong result.

What I take into account in my way of typing -- in the following order:

- VI when I see them (comparison with faces that are known to be a certain type, body language, stare, posture, facial expressions, clothing style etc. ; easy to tell apart N from S, Se from Si, T from F, J from p, Fi from Fe usually)
- Functions / IMs in what they say/write ....it takes more than a few sentences, ofc
- general vibe (not hard to separate T from F, J from p, and Quadras this way)
- Polr - what appears to be the weakest side?
- Reinin dichotomies (not all of them ...only those I find the most reliable and easily observable in (online) convos: Neg/pos, Constr/Em, Dyn/Static, Merry/Ser, Asking/Declr, Democr/Arist, Process/Result).
- Intertype

[Waster]

Observation.

[Myst]

Here's how I as an LII approach typing others:

My primary method is to see how how their functions are used according to model A. What appears to be their base function? Their creative function? Their PoLR? etc. I also take into account what quadra they best fit into and what their temperament is.

I find this to be me effective than taking a dichotomous approach (Are they more E or I? S or N? T or F? j or p?) although I will do this on occasion, when the first approach still leaves me with a few possibilities.

I do use a comparative method sometimes, where I look to see how the person resembles or differs from someone I know whom I'm certain of their type.

I don't place much emphasis on VI. I never use it alone to type someone. If I have it narrowed down to two types, I might suggest that the person VI's more like type X than type Y but it still doesn't definitively make them type X.

Test results don't mean that much. Just because someone says they test as a certain type doesn't mean they are that type or even close to it. The person may lack the self-awareness or may not understand the questions properly. Some of the tests are poorly written and even someone very self-aware with an understanding of the questions and what they mean could still get a wrong result.

I try to determine Ego functions in terms of information processing filters, finding the dual seeking function and PoLR also helps. I stick with Model A as much as possible, including dimensionality of functions of course. I tentatively check with model B (function +- signs) strictly only for the Ego functions though and tentatively the cognitive styles. The quadra values sometimes stand out very much though have to be careful not to confuse it with other things. I also like to determine inert/contact subtype but I do not subscribe for any of the ideas on patterns of functions strengthened beyond Ego block, EM theory also no good.

I ignore a lot really, I ignore test results and Reinin dichotomies. I also ignore I/E because often people just mean social introversion/extraversion by it. I ignore temperament as well because it's derived from functions. Most behavioural traits I also ignore. I do not make comparisons to other people that would be going beyond fun anecdote level because I do not need to conflate the socionics IEs with other factors. I don't put much stock in vibes either for the same reason. Intertype relations could be useful but I'm still in exploration mode for those, though I may notice myself relating to some people in certain ways that can help with typing.

As for methods, observation over time and deep interview touching on the inside of the mind are good, VI is just for fucking around though I can tell a few little things from it (limited use but not totally useless).

[anndelise]

Sometimes something will really stand out about a person, this can lead to the idea of a partial typing, but open for change as new information comes in.

I generally don't think about typing someone unless there is some kind of problem with them, whether between me and them or them and someone else. I type the problem first. What type of information is each person requesting or expecting of the the other? What type of info are they providing? Who seems to be struggling with which type of information? Who seems able to handle which info fairly easily and expansively? Etc. Usually the answers lead to a partial typing, sometimes to a full typing.

I'm very rarely settled on a typing for someone, always open to new info, new understandings, double checking my understanding of them, recognizing that I'm likely seeing only a narrow portion of themselves, etc. I also tend to attempt to falsify what typing of them I have. Such as looking for how they might demonstrate NOT being that type, what other explanations could there be, etc.


Basically, I constantly flip my observations and understandings around, looking at it from different perspectives and through different lenses. I also don't limit my understanding of them to socionics terminology.

[Myst]

If I don't like someone, I'd like to say, 'you can't possibly be in my quadra', but I recognize that people come from different walks of life. (...) I have to check my myself and my basis's and make sure it's not me typing someone off of how much I can relate to those aspects of people instead of similar like thinking...

woah are there really people doing this... so idiotic. Good thing you at least try to not do it.

[Myst]

It seems common enough to me. I see people on forums openly admitting to it all the time. Some don't admit to it, but it's still obvious to me. Seems to me more common with feelers and less with thinkers or E5's, but I've seen thinkers do it too, like 'they can't be my dual because I don't like them/I can't get along with them/I don't like how they act', which I had my suspicions someone was doing a few days back, which came from a thinking type ..But instead of being shocked, it seems like you are mocking it.

I think there is logical intelligence and emotional intelligence, coming in different forms. I don't think being weaker in one area makes someone idiotic, just possessing a different area of strength, and like the old saying, 'A jack of all trades is a master at none.' Sometimes it's just best to work with your strengths. For me, it can serve as a filter for what's important to me. It does seem some are unable to bypass that. But I still don't think that necessarily makes it idiotic, just different. And it can be good for a person, I suppose.

But I believe there are different forms of idiocy, and a person can think something is idiotic that is way different than what another thinks is idiotic by what's important to them. Sometimes people just think their way is best, and anyone doing anything different is lesser than them, less intelligent, or inferior...which I think this line of thought seems like a pretty common theme ingrained in the human character, varying in intensity, able to rear it's ugly head in forms such as intolerance, arrogance, and control, spanning across the ages...leading to disagreements, arguments, war...
I'm not saying I'm completely innocent of it myself, but I'm saying I acknowledge it.

So, in my eyes, to each their own. What's good for one person isn't necessarily good for another. What's idiotic to some is insightful to others. People have the option to disregard others opinions based on how they type or whatever, but it might work for others. Maybe both ways can lead to the same place in the end, even.

No this is a logical theory that's not intended to be abused in this way to justify likes and dislikes. No, that violates the objective truth (I'm not asserting anything about how true the socionics model specifically is btw, this is more general).

(The following lines are not for you specifically, just general.) Feel free to think in whatever way you like in areas of life where that's suitable but why distort the objective process of categorization with it. So your idea of "to each their own" doesn't work here.

I actually don't have a problem with you, myst, but I noticed you've been randomly insulting people lately, and I had my own theory of why. Sometimes I don't know if I'm being paranoid or right, but I feel like I'm being used as a pawn for you to make a point, and I don't like it. It didn't bother me as much until you did it to me, personally. Maybe you didn't see it as insulting as I did, but it was to me. I actually don't dislike you, so I recommend you go insult a fellow Beta, who you might not offend and can share in similar views.

Have a nice day

Alright now stop with the -of course negative, never positive- assumptions about me & my motivations. No one asked you to try and analyse me in such a personal way & esp in public. But since you voiced your concerns, I will reply. No I did not use you as a pawn for anything, I simply read your post and got slightly pissed off about the misuse of the socionics model. Nothing personal there and you should not try to read anything into it. Brush up on your socionics theory knowledge, Ti isn't personal like your Fi is. So your Fi based assumptions will be way off many times.

And again, why do you see it as insulting when I explicitly added that it's cool that you are aware of this issue and try not to give in to the temptation? As for other people, I was not insulting anyone intentionally on this forum without reason. If anyone has a problem, they can always contact me and I'm happy to discuss the issue.

Oh and talking about insults, let's be equal here, I did find it insulting that you'd assume things like the above about me. I don't really care tho'.

Lol about the recommendation though, I don't mind the idea at all

[Myst]

Well I'm certainly not defending that way of typing. It annoys the crap out of me. It's like arguing with someone and they start wanting to retype you. I see people do it to others and its like, 'yeah I think you're retyping them because they pissed you off or something'...etc. I just like analyzing people and why I think they are doing what they are doing...it's just something I like to do...

I guess I don't like tossing around the word 'idiotic' and that's what bothered me. Usually when someone says someone did something that is idiotic, I immediately make the assumption that they think they are idiotic. It's either idiotic all the time or not at all to me. And I don't like thinking anyone or anything is completely idiotic. I suppose that sounds kind of black and white.

So saying that 'at least you try not to do that' is like saying 'well at least you are trying not to be an idiot.'

lol.

Anyway, I don't want to talk anymore about it.

I'm sorry I made assumptions about your intentions. I will PM you in the future if need be, although I'm not a big PM person.

Alright no problem. Eh, yeah, I've personally experienced that "typing practice" too, people conflicting with me and then trying to type me whatever, lol. This is just me but I still find it hard to understand how exactly some people can be so influenced by their feelings. Nothing wrong with feelings but when it distorts objective judgment this much, uh... not good :/ As for the word usage "idiotic", I usually mean the behaviour or way of thinking by it, yeah. Anyone can do something idiotic at times so the statement on its own doesn't judge the entire person.

[Words]

Here's how I as an LII approach typing others:

My primary method is to see how how their functions are used according to model A. What appears to be their base function? Their creative function? Their PoLR? etc. I also take into account what quadra they best fit into and what their temperament is.

I find this to be me effective than taking a dichotomous approach (Are they more E or I? S or N? T or F? j or p?) although I will do this on occasion, when the first approach still leaves me with a few possibilities.

I do use a comparative method sometimes, where I look to see how the person resembles or differs from someone I know whom I'm certain of their type.

I don't place much emphasis on VI. I never use it alone to type someone. If I have it narrowed down to two types, I might suggest that the person VI's more like type X than type Y but it still doesn't definitively make them type X.

Test results don't mean that much. Just because someone says they test as a certain type doesn't mean they are that type or even close to it. The person may lack the self-awareness or may not understand the questions properly. Some of the tests are poorly written and even someone very self-aware with an understanding of the questions and what they mean could still get a wrong result.

Why do you start off with LII?

The butterfly affect changes if another LII doesn't care for it right away, or uses VI.

Edit: Sorry if this is a lot to ask? I just have this thing about leading Ti with Ne that they'll think of everything.

Although in fairness, LIIs I mentioned I currently know, are more into their HA of health and talking about how the steak was cooked or some other other food whilst smiling.