Typing Methodologies

[Mattie]

The instinctive approach is near useless. The only reason people engage in it is because they have a religious belief in their own abilities. They think that they are the next "typing messiah" that gets all the answers right just by guessing at them. Meanwhile, everybody reaches different conclusions on any person's type when applying the "vibe-typing" method. If in such a situation only one person can be right about the type, it follows that the rest of them are terminally deluded. Add to this the fact that the person that is "right" across different cases is not even always the same person, and you get a really dismal view of the sanity of people who engage in this childish game.

I am generally in agreement with this, but I think it's only fair for you to share what you do instead of coming in just to criticize others.

Unfortunately, socionics, the functions, the types are so vague and ill-defined in any practical sense that so often it is the case that we have to rely on 'intuitive' impressions of peoples types. Even going by 'the book' eg wikisocion produces incorrect assessments of peoples types.

You bring up a lot of good points and questions, all of which were in my mid as I decided to make this post. I think everyone has to to this conclusion and question what they have established in their minds (this is how my "Socionics journey" went, if you will), but it's possible only certain types (not Socionic) of people will indeed question the validity and consistency of the terms both used by "sources" and by the community. Whether or not they are isn't the ultimate question that everyone will arrive to the same answer, but I do think it's imperative that everyone does question and come to a well thought out answer.

Socionics is a pseudo science which might not actually even exist. Perhaps it's just a philosophical approach to people and relationships.

More and more I lean towards this, because I find there will never be enough motivation or ability to test Socionics, and if so, anyone can ultimately say anything "inspired" by Socionics' writing. This is what I'd like this thread to be about, I'm curious to know how everyone came to their current understanding and application of Socionics, or at least have people start asking themselves this question. Though, it might turn some discussion moot in others' opinions, which wouldn't be ideal since there are people who think there is a general right way and general wrong way to do this.

I would like to agree with you and do things without any instinctive approach, but perhaps considering what i've wrote, you could advise me how it is to be avoided? The only way I can see to avoid it is for a person just to create their own understanding or rather - a more correct word - interpretation of socionics, which no matter how well layered it is, is still built upon some form of 'instinct', personal impression etc.

Your own subjective understanding how Socionics and how you deal with things such as Socionics will be the foundation of everything you learn, and it's hard if not impossible to get rid of it, and it's almost unnecessary to. To have it be the focus, well, that's debatable, but that might just go under having a different interpretation like you mentioned. Even Labcoat goes along with a rather predictable manner of responding to certain posts (this isn't to call him out, but rather say that even someone who brings up that you can't allow your instincts to rule your understanding, you ultimately had that instinct already. It's just not completely a bad thing). The only thing I've come up with is to come up with certain criteria and make sure you follow them from the beginning, and then update each time you learn something new.

That socionics isn't objectively defined - I simply back this up by demonstrating every type discussion and every discussion about the functions.

[Aiss]

I don't remember when the last "How do you type!?" thread has been created, but this is going to be contrasting in the manner of "How do you apply Socionics to reality and get something useful out of it?" It's readily apparent that there are differing views which are ultimately the amount of how many members there are here. I thought it would be insightful to share how we all find Socionics useful, such as having personal rules of thumbs or ideologies. I'm hoping this can be less of a "This method is right, this method is wrong" in hopes for a more holistic approach to the subject at large. For example, maybe you VI first and this gives you a better frame of reference to then start deducing what type a person is. Or, when talking to the person in question, you throw out key words or concepts and see how they react to them, and see how that may correlate to type. Also share what about Socionics you'd like there to be clarity/improvement, as well as certain practices or techniques you use. I'm interested to see descriptions along the line of "A Day in the Life of a 'Socionist,'" how an awareness of a process like Socionics has changed how you look at things, and would be helpful for everyone to know.

The way you speak of holistic approach yet focus on explicit steps and possibilities sounds Ne to me - internal, but object-focused element.

I am generally in agreement with this, but I think it's only fair for you to share what you do instead of coming in just to criticize others.

You bring up a lot of good points and questions, all of which were in my mid as I decided to make this post. I think everyone has to to this conclusion and question what they have established in their minds (this is how my "Socionics journey" went, if you will), but it's possible only certain types (not Socionic) of people will indeed question the validity and consistency of the terms both used by "sources" and by the community. Whether or not they are isn't the ultimate question that everyone will arrive to the same answer, but I do think it's imperative that everyone does question and come to a well thought out answer.

More and more I lean towards this, because I find there will never be enough motivation or ability to test Socionics, and if so, anyone can ultimately say anything "inspired" by Socionics' writing. This is what I'd like this thread to be about, I'm curious to know how everyone came to their current understanding and application of Socionics, or at least have people start asking themselves this question. Though, it might turn some discussion moot in others' opinions, which wouldn't be ideal since there are people who think there is a general right way and general wrong way to do this.

Your own subjective understanding how Socionics and how you deal with things such as Socionics will be the foundation of everything you learn, and it's hard if not impossible to get rid of it, and it's almost unnecessary to. To have it be the focus, well, that's debatable, but that might just go under having a different interpretation like you mentioned. Even Labcoat goes along with a rather predictable manner of responding to certain posts (this isn't to call him out, but rather say that even someone who brings up that you can't allow your instincts to rule your understanding, you ultimately had that instinct already. It's just not completely a bad thing). The only thing I've come up with is to come up with certain criteria and make sure you follow them from the beginning, and then update each time you learn something new.

You seem to have come into socionics with a preconceived notion of it in mind, of what it is if not how it is - open to learn it, but with a preconception of it itself. This is characteristic of static ego, introverted function of which is rational - the context may be explicit or not, but it's set. As well, rather than consider the existing theory in an abstract matter, you come off as personally involved when speaking of its potential, though not emotional - considering your attitude to it based on its potential.

The way you speak of sources and then constructing an understanding, updating it, is inherently static again. In static types, things are perceived and add up to a judging framework. In dynamic types, things are judged individually and perceived holistically, resulting in perspective, a mindset rather than a core model. The key concepts here are construction and emergence; both seem to yield comparable results as far as socionics is concerned.

So static, Ne and Fi. I would probably add that you seem more determined about Fi and natural about Ne, which would suggest Fi covering for Ti-PoLR while you don't seem to feel the need to prove anything about Ne; an IEE dynamic.

---

Well, you did ask for practical examples. There go my mystical vibes.

[ilikesex]

More and more I lean towards this, because I find there will never be enough motivation or ability to test Socionics, and if so, anyone can ultimately say anything "inspired" by Socionics' writing. This is what I'd like this thread to be about, I'm curious to know how everyone came to their current understanding and application of Socionics, or at least have people start asking themselves this question. Though, it might turn some discussion moot in others' opinions, which wouldn't be ideal since there are people who think there is a general right way and general wrong way to do this.

how much jung have you read? you should read some jung.

[Azeroffs]

When I try to apply socionics, I try to keep in mind what socionics is. (information metabolism; essentially, what people are aware of and focus on.) I then look for anything which might signify key aspects of an element. What does this person focus on? How do their thoughts reflect their focus? How do their actions reflect their focus? I try to get into people's motivations and thoughts and derive where those motivations might have come from. A lot of the time it's unclear as a single action could the result of many different motivations, and motivation from many different awarenesses. I keep in mind that getting into people's heads is not easy, and often impossible unless they're willing to bring you in. I rely on my ability interpret the reasoning of things and people's vibes, but it's a constant battle of building up and then breaking down the conclusions I come to. Over time I've begun to realize the impracticality of trying to do quick typings, and I only give typings weight in situations where I'm able to get really close to a person and be sure I know them at a deep level.

Really the only thing of practical use I get out of socionics on a daily bases is the realization that people just have different ways of thinking about things and a way to try to rationalize it. I might assign a type or traits of a type to a person in order to understand where their coming from and adjust my perspective in order reach a compromise in situations of misunderstanding or general disagreement. But, often these traits I assign to the person are temporary in order to get through the misunderstanding. Assigning a permanent type to someone takes a long time and generally just doesn't happen as it's too impractical to come to any finalized sense of certainty that I have figured out their true type. There are a number who I will give provisional types to, but they're all very subject to change, and I really don't give any weight to the typing making it essentially pointless.

[Jarno]

Typing by comparison. (You do need a large database in your mind of people and their behaviour.)

If it walks and talks like a certain type, it is part of that type category.

[Logos]

I have developed a cynical outlook towards typology. Typing rarely seems to be employed in a methodological manner. More often than not typing becomes an exercise of "I hate you" or "You rub me the wrong way," so you are in my opposing quadra. Or "I like you" or "You do not annoy me as much as others," so you must be in my quadra or an adjacent one. And of course the all too frequent, "You're so hawt, I want you in my quadra right now!"

[mu4]

You're so hawt, I want you in my quadra right now!

[Mattie]

Now that I'm an 'experienced' typer, I go largely by processes of transference and counter-transference.

Mind explaining this in a little more detail? I'm unfamiliar with what you're talking about.

Well, you did ask for practical examples. There go my mystical vibes.

Can't argue with that I'm guessing that you identify through dichotomies to gain context until you can start to spot the IMEs and their positions?

how much jung have you read? you should read some jung.

Most of the Jung I've read had to do with his other observations (archetypes such as shadow, anima, etc) rather than his functions. I have obtained his writing on psychological types and plan to read it when I have time. Why do you suggest this in particular, and I guess a more pertinent questions would be, has specifically reading him altered your typing methodology?

I rely on my ability interpret the reasoning of things and people's vibes, but it's a constant battle of building up and then breaking down the conclusions I come to. Over time I've begun to realize the impracticality of trying to do quick typings, and I only give typings weight in situations where I'm able to get really close to a person and be sure I know them at a deep level.

Interesting, for me, something usually tips me off when I'm not looking to type them, and it makes me think "Oooh, this seems like such a good example of >insert IME in a function position here<" and then look to see if it reoccurs. I also find that quick typings are less useful, and over time when the person as a whole is really incorporated into your understanding, and what they do is Socionics-related and what isn't, then it starts to... mean something to you. You experience it and then understand, rather than mentally putting it together.

Really the only thing of practical use I get out of socionics on a daily bases is the realization that people just have different ways of thinking about things and a way to try to rationalize it. I might assign a type or traits of a type to a person in order to understand where their coming from and adjust my perspective in order reach a compromise in situations of misunderstanding or general disagreement. But, often these traits I assign to the person are temporary in order to get through the misunderstanding. Assigning a permanent type to someone takes a long time and generally just doesn't happen as it's too impractical to come to any finalized sense of certainty that I have figured out their true type. There are a number who I will give provisional types to, but they're all very subject to change, and I really don't give any weight to the typing making it essentially pointless.

Huh, usually I feel comfortable with typing someone, but it's not completely etched in stone. I keep the typing until it seems like a lot of information conflicts with the typing (I had a typing of NeTi for my best friend, and as I started to realize certain communication differences, I realized the potential for her being TiNe, and then as I mulled this over, I realized she's been TiNe all along) and use it to understand misunderstandings. I would say I benefited by understanding that certain things people said (like my best friend) weren't being rude, malicious, or intentionally difficult, and I apply Socionics to discern this. I also use it to adjust how I explain things as well, and to anticipate certain issues and prepare for them.

Typing by comparison. (You do need a large database in your mind of people and their behaviour.)

If it walks and talks like a certain type, it is part of that type category.

My question to you would be how did you get your database, and how did you check your database before it was large enough to be reliable?

I have developed a cynical outlook towards typology. Typing rarely seems to be employed in a methodological manner. More often than not typing becomes an exercise of "I hate you" or "You rub me the wrong way," so you are in my opposing quadra. Or "I like you" or "You do not annoy me as much as others," so you must be in my quadra or an adjacent one. And of course the all too frequent, "You're so hawt, I want you in my quadra right now!"

I can understand this cynicism when it comes to the forum, but does this affect you as well? Are you unable to control your own urges? I was hoping for a personal methodology rather than the critique of others'.

[DividedsGhost]

When I try to apply socionics, I try to keep in mind what socionics is. (information metabolism; essentially, what people are aware of and focus on.) I then look for anything which might signify key aspects of an element. What does this person focus on? How do their thoughts reflect their focus? How do their actions reflect their focus? I try to get into people's motivations and thoughts and derive where those motivations might have come from. A lot of the time it's unclear as a single action could the result of many different motivations, and motivation from many different awarenesses. I keep in mind that getting into people's heads is not easy, and often impossible unless they're willing to bring you in. I rely on my ability interpret the reasoning of things and people's vibes, but it's a constant battle of building up and then breaking down the conclusions I come to. Over time I've begun to realize the impracticality of trying to do quick typings, and I only give typings weight in situations where I'm able to get really close to a person and be sure I know them at a deep level.

Really the only thing of practical use I get out of socionics on a daily bases is the realization that people just have different ways of thinking about things and a way to try to rationalize it. I might assign a type or traits of a type to a person in order to understand where their coming from and adjust my perspective in order reach a compromise in situations of misunderstanding or general disagreement. But, often these traits I assign to the person are temporary in order to get through the misunderstanding. Assigning a permanent type to someone takes a long time and generally just doesn't happen as it's too impractical to come to any finalized sense of certainty that I have figured out their true type. There are a number who I will give provisional types to, but they're all very subject to change, and I really don't give any weight to the typing making it essentially pointless.

Freaking excellent . To expect anything more than the bold is a waste of effort. The study of human relationships and information metabolism is an always changing study.

I would say I have found it most useful to just keep a basic easily adaptive model in mind for predicting behavior and motivation where I don't go overboard on trying to apply complex logistical systems that attempt to explain everything by putting people into static types. It will never work; it is just not worth the effort.

That said, in the short immediate term, I mostly look for situations where people are displaying leadingFunction-seekingFunction dynamics, as well as where people are utilizing their demonstrative function. In the long term, I look for inter-type relations and PoLR; and if that checks out, then I decide on leading and creative functions. That has been most reliable and rewarding for me in understanding and working with other people because these things tend to be somewhat variable in the short-terms among many people, depending on the situation. Of course, at other times, and usually in the long term, if the inter-type relations and PoLR are there, then I apply an overall type as most efficient in understanding. But basically, the more complex the motivations, the hazier everything becomes so I prefer to keep things situational (even when I have typed them) rather than static, unless the static has been shown to be quite probable. A static type for me would imply that the PoLR of the person typed has been mostly show to be stereotypical or extreme and that the inter-type relations are there to back them up, showing a clear particular leading and creative functional orientation.

[Mattie]

I somehow forgot about this thread lol I must have read it before leaving for somewhere and never saw new replies, sorry for disappearing

I'm not trying to objectively type, but get as close as I can. The fundamentals of types and functions I interpret as what is written on wikisocion; that is force, power, territory, Fe is focus on people, relationships and emotional atmosphere, etc. When I say simplify people's actions I mean getting to the origin of the action; why did they do this? What purpose did it serve for them? When you reduce their actions they more closely resemble the basic functions.

I was more wanting to understand what you meant by the term rather than question your intentions. I agree with the premise of wanting to find out how to objectively type as possible, and I can't really argue against your method. It's not exactly how I came to finding what is "objective," I also am curious to know how confident you are at guessing at peoples' intentions and motives, as that's something I don't feel comfortable doing because I can see people going so many different ways... Reminds me of another thread, and it seemed to be a vs difference, which I can understand. I don't think I personally would have came to either method you described in your example, I find behaviors and actions to be a hint but not good enough evidence. For me it's teasing out a person's thought processes and see the how and why they came to a reasoning or observation. My poor best friend is subject to many different strange questions as I like to understand how different her thought process is from mine.

Your argument assumes that we need to use a certain IE in order to see that IE. I have always thought that you can see the same through and also through . Just because we're using different functions to interpret another doesn't mean our judgement is inherently wrong or biased.

I didn't mean it that way, I meant that you always have the lens of certain IMEs on. So if you're -leading, you're naturally going to see things existing in context before you go about identifying certain behavior, especially when something catches you off guard. I don't think you have to be a certain type to conceptualize the type's process (in a basic abstract sense, of course). So I don't think it's impossible, but I think you have to go through an extra step, you have to realize that from the beginning, you've been building your understanding through your type... I only brought it up because I personally felt the method you described would fall prey to that, but I can't say that my method escapes such pitfalls either.

I think it's easy to recognize non-valued functions through the absence of valued functions. That is, / most often comes across to me as something like "not-/". I also find it useful to treat functions in pairs like this… i.e. if someone seems valuing, they should necessarily show signs of -valuing as well if this is true. It's a simple measure that can help double-check a person's type.

I've heard this from a couple of other people, but I can't seem to do this. I always spot the existence of something rather than the nonexistence. And I tend to piece things together IME by IME.

I also disagree with the idea that you need to 'know the person well' in order to type them. Typing is not that deep.

To add onto this, sometimes knowing a person too well can be a hindrance. I think knowing people well is needed by Skeptic's typing method, because they have to understand a person's motivations as connected to IMEs. I would say I don't need to know the person well because I have an idea how to type someone by what they are actively doing without needing to know (a large amount) of their thoughts that they don't express.

however if this was based on a relatively small amount of information i might not consider the typing to be that strong. but if i gather more and more information about a person that turns out to be consistent with the typing, it would only reinforce it. if the new information seems to conflict with my previous conclusion i may drop the typing and reconsider - whether it's the typing or my own understanding of things. generally, everything has to fit or it's hard for me to accept a clear typing. often i have someone's type narrowed down to a few options.

[...]

i don't force typings. if i can't get readings on someone then i accept that i don't know their type for the time being. sometimes people strongly come across as a certain type to me even when i wasn't necessarily trying to type them.

no typings are set in stone for me - i'll most likely never be 100% sure of someone's type and don't care to be. my typings are always subject to change.

I'm generally like this as well, I'll have a "working" type that I try to have the person "wear", and they wear it until something comes to contradict it, and then I'll switch the type. I think because I don't talk about Socionics too often offline, I never have a person's type as 100% solid, and don't feel pressured to report types.

regarding other people's opinions: other people's typings (or the person's own self-typing, if available) can give me some kind of a starting point to work with, though in the end i mostly rely on my own understanding of things to type, and to determine whether i agree with someone else's analysis or typing. if there is a consensus on someone's type, and i happen to have an unpopular opinion that i'm reasonably convinced of, that doesn't really affect my own typing much. i just think everyone else is wrong, until something convinces me otherwise.

also sometimes someone else's thoughts/analyses on someone's type, or socionics in general, may resonate with me; i find them very perceptive and i use them to improve my own understanding; and others' i just don't find that impressive or insightful and i find them easy to dismiss. i'm not sure yet exactly what causes this difference in my reactions.

I'm pretty much the same way, but my opinion of this person and how they are in multiple realms greatly affects how I deal with information coming from them.

It is similar to what Jarno said: in my mind (mind actually isn't the right word, but I don't know a better one) I have 'knowledge' on various types, and I type someone else by means of the 'feelings' (again: for lack of a better word) they invoke in me. So unlike Jarno, it's not how they look or behave, it's the gut response they invoke in me. This response almost always involves a value judgment of some kind, but it is not something rational (in the non-socionc sense) or cognitive.

I see, the "database" method is rather unintuitive for me, as I see too many nuances with every individual to really have a chunk of them in a category and have them as models. I always start with a gut feeling, like you, but I never end on it.

I would say I have found it most useful to just keep a basic easily adaptive model in mind for predicting behavior and motivation where I don't go overboard on trying to apply complex logistical systems that attempt to explain everything by putting people into static types. It will never work; it is just not worth the effort.

I'm starting to find that I don't really have a model at all... Just a whole bunch of terms with definitions and combinations that I check against what I've observed. I think if I was (for some reason) had no lead about someone and I couldn't get a gut vibe to guide me initially, I would just through every IA and function combination at them until I see a pattern or get a lead.