Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Typing accuracy

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,937
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Typing accuracy

    What do you think is a maintainable accuracy level for typing in the following situations?

    - a quick glimpse of a person, barely able to register their facial and bodily features

    - 2 minutes of obseravation of the person at a distance

    - seeing the person for long periods of time (on television or in your surrounding world) but not having interacted

    - having interacted with the person for under 2 minutes

    - spending several weeks around the person with frequent instances of interaction

    - having heard the person's voice on telephone only

    - having the person described to you in words only

    Answer the question in terms of how many dichotomies you identify, or how many types you are undecided between.

  2. #2
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,685
    Mentioned
    95 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I can accurately type most people in under 2 minutes of interaction usually; if it takes more than that, it will likely take a significant amount of interaction and observation to determine more accurately. Sometimes I can type someone just by seeing their face once. Some people I've known for years and I'm still not certain about their type. Just depends on the person, really.

  3. #3
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,418
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    - a quick glimpse of a person, barely able to register their facial and bodily features.
    1%

    - 2 minutes of obseravation of the person at a distance
    3%

    - seeing the person for long periods of time (on television or in your surrounding world) but not having interacted
    80%

    - having interacted with the person for under 2 minutes
    20%

    - spending several weeks around the person with frequent instances of interaction
    90%

    - having heard the person's voice on telephone only
    5%

    - having the person described to you in words only
    35%


    % of times when I can say with certainty which type the person is.

  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

    It seems many people don't seem bothered by how reliable some typing situations are to them. That might explain why they aren't bothered with accuracy in general.

  5. #5
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,685
    Mentioned
    95 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Some people are better at typing under different circumstances. For example I'm better at typing someone before I get to know them; once I have an opinion of my own of the person beyond an initial vibe, sometimes I'm "too close" to the situation to really type accurately.

  6. #6
    yeves's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    TIM
    Si 6 spsx
    Posts
    1,359
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lecter View Post
    having heard the person's voice on telephone only
    is this hearing the tone of their voice only or having one phone conversation with the person?

  7. #7
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Berlin
    TIM
    LSI 5w6 sx/so
    Posts
    5,402
    Mentioned
    144 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    What do you think is a maintainable accuracy level for typing in the following situations?

    - a quick glimpse of a person, barely able to register their facial and bodily features
    30% (at least as far as I'm concerned, not bad at snapshots)

    - 2 minutes of observation of the person at a distance
    30-40% (if they're doing something/talking and that gives me extra material to draw upon)

    - seeing the person for long periods of time (on television or in your surrounding world) but not having interacted
    50-75%

    - having interacted with the person for under 2 minutes
    < 50 %

    - spending several weeks around the person with frequent instances of interaction
    80-100%

    - having heard the person's voice on telephone only
    15-30 % (T vs F can be easy to tell apart, also Fi vs Fe and Te vs Ti if you get into details ...provided that the conversation had some substantial content and I didn't hear only formulaic stuff + their voice modulations for max.3 min.)

    - having the person described to you in words only
    I don't give much credit to second-hand descriptions, they can be contaminated by unavoidable bias ... it's like I have 2 or more brain filters to chew on and solve ... but let's say about 20-40%

    Answer the question in terms of how many dichotomies you identify, or how many types you are undecided between.
    Last edited by Amber; 12-01-2014 at 09:46 PM.

  8. #8
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    8,313
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I can chose a typing for someone, and play on it a bit, but most of the time never come to a sure conclusion until I've really gotten to know the person and seen them interact in various environments. I don't think typing on hunches or interests, or things they have in common with me or others is accurate enough. It has to be based on the IMs and the larger picture, because I can easily get stuck in the details just like a lot of people here, you know, seeing insignificant surface details and trying to fit them into a category because they look like someone else.

Posting Permissions

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