Typing Methodologies

[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'.

[Ave]

When I first discovered socionics I read up on the descriptions of the types to get a clear idea in my head of what they were like. I already had some idea, based on MBTI so that part wasnt difficult. After that i immediatly started typing people I knew. As it turned out many of these typings were wrong, some were not. After that I got a better idea of the types and had some common trends in my mind based upon the typings i had made. Now with these common trends I tend to type based on surface impressions i get of people, mainly their behavior and relations with other types.

[Mattie]

When I first discovered socionics I read up on the descriptions of the types to get a clear idea in my head of what they were like. I already had some idea, based on MBTI so that part wasnt difficult. After that i immediatly started typing people I knew. As it turned out many of these typings were wrong, some were not. After that I got a better idea of the types and had some common trends in my mind based upon the typings i had made. Now with these common trends I tend to type based on surface impressions i get of people, mainly their behavior and relations with other types.

Mind giving some examples on what these sort of trends are? Are there some types of trends that are more influential on your typing than others? And what are the differences between the MBTI types and Socionics types, that you've noticed, in practice? Do ENTPs tend to be NeTi, etc?

This phenomenon affects everyone unequally. Though asking whether or not I am "unable to control [my] own urges" makes it sound as if it was deviant or perverted behavior. I would say that it becomes easier to reflect on the matter of a subject's type through continual self-awareness of this phenomenon. Sometimes I must ask, What preconceptions do I have about the subject? What preconceptions do I have about a type? Do I have an agenda with this subject? What do I know about them, and more importantly, what do I not know? Is the foundation for my conclusion built upon well-reasoned evidence or intuition?

I read your original post thinking you were putting a negative light on what you were describing, which is why I said what I did. But I find myself doing this as well, especially when I come to any knee-jerk assessments; I think it's a good rule of thumb to be weary of why you came to a certain conclusion, and to "fact-check" so-to-speak. I also try out typing them another type possibility as a counter-argument, if you will, and see if the original type was a better suggestion or not.

Objective typing;

I think objective understanding can be achieved to an extent; instead of blowing the IEs out of proportion in order to compare them to people's actions, I try to simplify people's actions until they compare to the fundamental basic functions. This is why I disagree with removing the essential basics from the functions; though a person's actions may not be forceful, once simplified and examined at their most primitive level they could resemble force.

What exactly do you mean by "Objective Typing" and what do you consider the "basics" of IAs, IMEs, and the functions? And what is the methodology of how you "simplify" peoples' actions, and how is this useful? I'm not trying to quiz-show you, I'm genuinely curious about this paragraph.

Clearly, using this method, the problem no longer lies in the interpretation of the functions but rather the examination and simplification of another's actions, which leaves much less room for error imo, especially if you understand the person and their motives.

From my understanding, this would cause a lot of trouble. First, you're typing by actions that you don't necessarily know the motivation behind, and because of your type, you seem them in a particular manner. Just as an example and not to drag through theory, you will have a hard time not rationalizing something under your leading IME and it's likely you will not be able to directly observe your Role IME without dedication; and you won't always be having this switch on. So you're always under the influence having an interpretation, putting aside the argument that your subjective understanding of Socionics is, well, subjective. It would take a good amount of time to know a person so well that you can detect their motives to explain each of their actions... I'm not sure, I'd like to hear why you came to this.

Basically my whole complaint is that I have to use an impractical method to get some practical use, and even then the practicality is questionable.

For some reason, I don't find impracticality in how I type and the result. I think it's because I actively try using that information to see if something good can come out of it. It might come from that I've always been confident about my type and when I seem to go through a paradigm shift of understanding, I have confidence in myself to translate things over and adjust how I've been handling things. This also might come from that my ultimate aim to use Socionics as a practical tool, as it seems pretty useless to me otherwise; I don't find it a strong tool at the moment, or it's one who of electric drills with 3445 power settings and I only figured out the go button and make do with that.

My only requirement is that the overwhelming majority of evidence must be of a firsthand (i.e. primary source) nature. I don't like secondhand opinions or intepretations; I like what I can observe with my own eyes or experience myself through interaction.

I find this important because I get very different feelings from people on the forum and in videos and pictures in comparison to my offline interactions. Actually, you don't in person with this, but for me personally, I'd add "In person." The visceral feeling of other people, the fact that you're experiencing them and getting these feelings, create a better context for you as long as you're specifically aware of this context and how it influences you. I had recently plopped down some typing of forum members I've talked a lot with, but even then, something very gaping and missing is evident.

For example, I generally don't put much weight on things such as: Specific competencies or skillsets possessed by that individual, what their professions or hobbies happen to be, what their achievements in life may have been, etc. At best, I'd consider these weak correlates of type

This is something I'm generally aligned with and I find a lot of people disagree with.

As you might already know, I'm pretty dismissive of behavorial trait attributions as well. I consider them highly misleading and too prone to the Fundamental Attribution Error among other things. In assessing others behavior, the subjective element of perception is an oft-forgotten aspect of Socionics…

[...]


To put it in a nutshell: Socionics is infinitely more useful as a theory about cognition than it is a theory about behavior. I'm less interested in what you do, I'm more interested in how you do it, and in the ways you seem to think, feel, and perceive.

I'd like to hear what people have to say to this, because I agree and try not to type based on behavioral traits, but a lot of others' find it to be the way. Is it because there isn't a readily apparent alternative? I already know Ashton's opinion, so I'd wanna hear others'.

I find myself using mostly IA/IE dichotomies these days, though it really depends on what's most pronounced. In my experience, Jungian dichotomies don't tend to be clear in most cases

Reminds me of an argument we once had

Also, I probably wouldn't have commented as I did about your writing if I weren't somehow acquainted with you and considered myself able to tell what's typical for you. Or if it were less about your approach and more about opinions.

What about this was typical, out of curiosity (I want to see what qualities you pick up on), because I'm not really all that great of picking up someone's type on a wall of text.

It reminds me of an argument we had long time ago about typing and mirrors.

It differs a little from what we were talking about. Basically, this is my best friend from around the time I started learning MBTI (when I was 12-13; I am now 23, so MBTI has been in my life for 10 years, jeez), and when I typed her then, she was ENTP. Now, over the years, she has been gradually going to INTP, and I would say she is, indeed, INTP, but I kept in my mind that when was ENTP because I never ran into a problem directly with it. The problem comes in with Socionics because of it's close ties to MBTI... I just switched her over as NeTi because it seemed to work, and I was ENFP and translated well over to NeFi, so why not? The first cue I got that something had gone awry with my Socionics was when I had typed a friend of our's NiTe, but then I realized, oh shit, he's really SiFe! How the hell did I type someone their Super-Ego? I came to the conclusion that it was because he was an INTP in MBTI, and that had colored my typing. So I started to rework my typings now that I was aware of that MBTI-bias that helped me understand Socionics but was making my typings wrong, and I still never questioned my best friend's type; until recently. We have been traveling together and are taking a class together for the first time, and the different modes we have are just way too different, I started to question NeTi, and one day, I just popped into my head "What if she is actually TiNe?" and things eerily fell into place. Until then, I thought I interacted with NeTi differently than with my best friend because I had known her for so long, but she also has a lot of TiNe friends and the similarities were just starting to add up too well.

In general, when I type people, I don't have a person as possibly being one type and it's mirror, because I usually have a certain IME in place that would discount the mirror as a possibility. I usually have the creative/mobilizing IMEs figured out first, which would throw out the mirror typing; I believe the discussion we had over this was how typing by IMEs in functions wouldn't allow for certain type either-ors, such as someone saying "I can't tell if I'm NeFi or FeNi." Though, I'd be more willing to accept "I don't know if I'm NeFi or NiFe" over FiNe seeing that the blocks are all in the same configuration, just a different order.

[Skeptic]

What exactly do you mean by "Objective Typing" and what do you consider the "basics" of IAs, IMEs, and the functions? And what is the methodology of how you "simplify" peoples' actions, and how is this useful? I'm not trying to quiz-show you, I'm genuinely curious about this paragraph.

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 am at a party and Sarah comes up to me and says 'John is upset and doesn't want anyone to talk to him'. I would ask myself; what is her motive in asking me this? Judging based on a number of factors including her tone, body language and past experience with her, I would try to understand what it is she's telling me and what function it is related to. Let's assume she was imploring and visibly upset. This would imply that she wants me to go cheer John up because he's lonely and sad. Her action is then related to . On the way to John (assuming we've attempted to cheer him up), she may say 'John is probably angry because he's had a lot to drink and spilt his drink on his couch'. What message is she giving now? It would appear that she is trying to find the source of John's anger by reviewing events in the past leading to the present. It would also appear that she thinks I need to know the cause and effect of John's actions in order to cheer him up. This I would associate with , though the phrase is admittedly ambiguous.

For this person I would tentatively consider beta NF. Many more interactions and experiences later I would conclude a type based on what I've seen of the person. Using the other method, you might conclude that she is beta NF for the same reasons and then make a mental note that beta NFs are concerned with how people are feeling at parties. This trait is not exclusive to beta NFs, however, so your understanding of socionics becomes flawed; it is the way in which she was concerned and how she handled it that points to beta NF.

From my understanding, this would cause a lot of trouble. First, you're typing by actions that you don't necessarily know the motivation behind, and because of your type, you seem them in a particular manner. Just as an example and not to drag through theory, you will have a hard time not rationalizing something under your leading IME and it's likely you will not be able to directly observe your Role IME without dedication; and you won't always be having this switch on. So you're always under the influence having an interpretation, putting aside the argument that your subjective understanding of Socionics is, well, subjective. It would take a good amount of time to know a person so well that you can detect their motives to explain each of their actions... I'm not sure, I'd like to hear why you came to this.

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.

And yes, there is room for error in that we are not always able to correctly find the motivation behind another's actions. Getting to understand people, the philosophy of language etc. will aid in this. The emphasis here is that we're bending people's actions to fit static socionic descriptions as opposed to bending socionics to meet the people.

Also, with this action reduction mentality my understanding of socionics doesn't go any further than what is officially written of socionics. And yes, you absolutely should get to know someone very very well before settling on a type for sure. Usually most people I know are confined to certain areas of certainty, like 'beta NF' or some sort of variation.

[mfckr]

.

[Ave]

Mind giving some examples on what these sort of trends are? Are there some types of trends that are more influential on your typing than others? And what are the differences between the MBTI types and Socionics types, that you've noticed, in practice? Do ENTPs tend to be NeTi, etc?

When I started with MBTI I didnt type people according to it. So this having started with socionics, I found myself typing based on functions right away.

[Logos]

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'.

This phenomenon affects everyone unequally. Though asking whether or not I am "unable to control [my] own urges" makes it sound as if it was deviant or perverted behavior. I would say that it becomes easier to reflect on the matter of a subject's type through continual self-awareness of this phenomenon. Sometimes I must ask, What preconceptions do I have about the subject? What preconceptions do I have about a type? Do I have an agenda with this subject? What do I know about them, and more importantly, what do I not know? Is the foundation for my conclusion built upon well-reasoned evidence or intuition?

[Skeptic]

I used to compose a list of actions they performed in what situations and then subjected them to a socionics analysis. This usually involved drawing parallels from their actions to the socionics IEs or descriptions. Aside from being very shady and creepy to have a big database of this, it could take hours if it was complicated enough.

 

Nowadays I recognize how totally inconsistent and wrong human memory is, so that database was really just a subconcious projection of my prejudice. I feel as though interactions with people are like dreams; the further in time you are from the experience, the further you will be from understanding. So I believe in speculation in the moment/right after, but not rushed. I've been trying to come up with a system based on the IEs to make this process easier, which involves reducing the IEs to very abstract concepts applied very indirectly by people in conversation; i.e. he's taking the initiative and speaking very confidently about this, what function is he using (how is he explaining it)? Now this other one is responding to him; how do they relate and is this a relation of functions? It's really intense!

Occasionally I picture everything I know about that person in my mind, trying on different types until one 'fits'. I really need to know them well enough to predict their behavior like that though.

 

A list of benchmark types; comparison is a great way to type someone! What bothers me most about it is that you could have been wrong in the first place, making it self-defeating...
Being around the person for a long time; anything you speculate before this is unreliable. I honestly don't think you can reasonably type anyone if you haven't spent extended periods of time with them, i.e. several sittings of several hours +.
Being around socionics for a long time; By seeking out new materials and reviewing/discussing the old ones I feel I have a more fleshed out version of the IEs.
Getting to know the person.. personally; 1on1 time will give you insights to what they're good at/what they like to do and a general overview of their life if you get that far in conversation.

 

Trying to explain a type based on intertype relations; Typing should be clear and not require abstract explanation. You could be wrong on the other guys' types too.
Typing based on personal feelings; your typings will change as often as your feelings!
Taking another's typing for truth; it ain't true till you've gotten your own hands dirty. I've friends who are just bad.

In general; Vibe typing bad. Don't rely on more than one person to type one person.

Objective typing;

I think objective understanding can be achieved to an extent; instead of blowing the IEs out of proportion in order to compare them to people's actions, I try to simplify people's actions until they compare to the fundamental basic functions. This is why I disagree with removing the essential basics from the functions; though a person's actions may not be forceful, once simplified and examined at their most primitive level they could resemble force.
Clearly, using this method, the problem no longer lies in the interpretation of the functions but rather the examination and simplification of another's actions, which leaves much less room for error imo, especially if you understand the person and their motives.

@words; I held your position a couple months ago; that socionics lacks any application and that it may just be imagined. That's why I tried to learn to apply socionics at its very basic level that left no room for interpretation of the functions but still works.

TBH; you'll never be able to get this crap out of your head so best learn to live with it... that's what I told myself anyway.

[Azeroffs]

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.

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.

Yeah I do the same as what you said here except that I purposefully question myself in order to make sure I have the right typing. But, I have problems with the inherent uncertainty of typings, and the general inability to say beyond a doubt that person is a certain type. So when I break down the uncertain parts, in many cases I could throw out the whole typing. What use is a typing you can't be certain of? How could I possibly make a a decision based on it? How can a make a comparison? Hell, I even question my type from time to time. Of what practical use something like that? I'm pretty comfortable forming opinions, but it doesn't go beyond that except in rare instances, and I'm not willing to base anything on that.

I know that practicality has nothing to do with the topic at hand, but it affects my typing method by scrutinizing it to death so that I might be able to predict how a relationship might turn out or whatever else.

[Logos]

Yeah I do the same as what you said here except that I purposefully question myself in order to make sure I have the right typing. But, I have problems with the inherent uncertainty of typings, and the general inability to say beyond a doubt that person is a certain type. So when I break down the uncertain parts, in many cases I could throw out the whole typing. What use is a typing you can't be certain of? How could I possibly make a a decision based on it? How can a make a comparison? Hell, I even question my type from time to time. Of what practical use something like that? I'm pretty comfortable forming opinions, but it doesn't go beyond that except in rare instances, and I'm not willing to base anything on that.

I know that practicality has nothing to do with the topic at hand, but it affects my typing method by scrutinizing it to death so that I might be able to predict how a relationship might turn out or whatever else.

I beg to differ. Practicality is of enormous importance when discussing methodology. What use are impractical methodologies?

[Azeroffs]

I beg to differ. Practicality is of enormous importance when discussing methodology. What use are impractical methodologies?

I meant the practicality of a typing once established. Basically the practicallity of socionics itself. It's mostly irrelevant to the method one uses in order to come to a typing. Or am I wrong? I'm not sure I understod you correctly.

Basically my whole complaint is that I have to use an impractical method to get some practical use, and even then the practicality is questionable.

[Aiss]

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?

I find myself using mostly IA/IE dichotomies these days, though it really depends on what's most pronounced. In my experience, Jungian dichotomies don't tend to be clear in most cases - I wouldn't be surprised if there was in fact normal distribution, or close enough - but I'll use them if they seem obviously applicable to a person. I consider it most significant if I notice Si/Ne or Ni/Se dynamic, or the same with rational functions, which I suppose could be written down as Reinin's judicious/decisive and merry/serious, but I don't really conform to his ideas about these types.

I tend to wait until I see something than do a check for signs, most of all. If you look for something, you're likely to find it whether it is or isn't there. Not that you can't imagine seeing things, but as it's hard to verify on-spot, it counts as a clue.

Also, I probably wouldn't have commented as I did about your writing if I weren't somehow acquainted with you and considered myself able to tell what's typical for you. Or if it were less about your approach and more about opinions.

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.

It reminds me of an argument we had long time ago about typing and mirrors.

TBH; you'll never be able to get this crap out of your head so best learn to live with it... that's what I told myself anyway.

So true.

[consentingadult]

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

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.

ETA: it's not just what feelings other people invoke in me, but also my response to it in terms of action/non-action.

Transference - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[blankblank]

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.

That's how I would like to be able to use socionics and other personality theories.

[Mattie]

Going along with this thread's theme, I was hoping to jump-start more of an active interest in maintaining the wiki we have, at least creating pages that outline our view on how we approach Socionics; this will not only help us think critically of our own methods, but also give us the opportunity to be exposed to others' ideas that might not be concisely presented here on the forum. I have my methodology and opinions more explicitly here: User:Mattie - Wikisocion

[silverchris9]

Okay. So, here's how I type.

I sort of don't think about socionics for a person until they do something that sparks a possible typing in my mind. What sorts of things spark typings? Well, it could be that I notice them dominating the atmosphere or flitting around the room in a very Fe way. Or it could be that I notice them in a relationship and think, "hm, could they be duals?" Or it could be that I see them sort of... instinctively or naturally standing up and taking charge of a situation and I think "Hm, possible Se ego?" Or maybe they do something that makes me think of a specific quadra. Regardless, that's how I do my initial typing.

So once I have this initial vague typing, I start looking for evidence for and against. Probably the first test is that I look at intertype relationships and try to type people around them. Sometimes (and I should do this more often, 'cause it's a potentially great method), I try other types on them and see how well the models of the other type fits with their behavior (a note on behavior later, maybe). One of my best tests is to alter my behavior to suit whatever type I think the person is. For instance, if I suspect that they're an Fi-valuer rather than an Fe-valuer, I try to tone down the Fe, not emphasize the facial expressions so much (when I first encounter someone, one of my first instincts is to really turn on the juice Fe-wise, 'cause I find that many people are receptive to that. Could also have something to do with having a Ti-leading father. Shrug.) And I almost always have my Se-Si sort of on a slider from intense motion Se to calm homeostatic Si (Se is as interested in causing change, i.e., disrupting homeostasis, as Si is in preventing excessive change, i.e., maintaining homeostasis. I think Se/Ni, especially beta, could be renamed "A New Homeostasis," a quest for a balance that is essentially unreachable). So anyway, I try to adjust my behavior to what I think may be the person's type, and if they respond favorably, that's good evidence for whatever socionics thing (e.g., preferred feeling function, quadra) I'm testing for at the moment.

I do ultimately try to base my typings on how people actually behave in the world interacting with other people. Of course habitual behaviors are emphasized over one-time things, and alternative socionics "explanations" for certain behaviors do have to be considered. But ultimately, I want to base my decision as to what type to label a person in my head (since that's going to affect my behavior towards them in many cases) on how the person actually acts. And I don't think it's at all bad or inaccurate typing to focus initially on behavior. If the person is a naturally take charge person, if they shine in situations where they can sort of take over and drive the ship, and furthermore, if they're not timid about it (or don't show any timidity anyway), Se-ego is a good initial guess. You do have to go back and look at the evidence. If they're like this, but they're getting along fantastically with every alpha and delta you know, and pretty poorly with all the gammas and betas you know, then it's time to seriously consider a different typing. But as long as you're weighing the available evidence, and always going back to say "how well does this model (socionics) fit reality (the person's behavior)?" then you should be fine, in my opinion.

I do want to emphasize that no action constrains type. There's not any one action that can make me absolutely rule out a type for a person. But there are actions that make me require very strong evidence to counterbalance them. For instance, if a person is constantly focused on organizing things the best way, maximizing efficiency, always being annoyed at people who don't pay enough attention to detail, people who disrupt the well-oiled machine... then it's going to take them getting along really really well with some Beta STs and pretty poorly with some Delta STs for me to see them as IEI.

Also, I'm always open to questioning someone's type, even if after I've had it settled in my mind for a while. For instance, there's a person I've long typed as IEE-Fi. But I notice her getting along extremely well with an IEI and an LSI. And that's strange, right? To have a good relationship with your conflictor? So now I'm considering an alpha type. On the other hand, should, after analysis, IEE continue to be the most logical typing (as I suspect it is; she is very much an Fi-valuer, and I don't really notice any Se from her), then I'm going to have to update my view of intertype relations, and perhaps spend some time thinking about this particular set of relations, specifically the relationship between her and the LSI (whose type I should also question, but you know, if he turns out to be LSI too), to try to figure out what it is about this conflict relation that makes it comparatively easy to deal with.


EDIT: Also, Ashton, something of a semantics question: who says that behavior is what and not how? Although I do think that "what" can be useful in typing as well, and also that the while the predictive accuracy of "what" is lower than "how," the power of an accurate prediction about what a person will do in a given situation is much higher than a prediction about how. And there's not really a clear line between "what" and "how" is there? A specific enough "what" is the same as a "how" about a broader "what". Complicated enough?


EDIT 2: And again, since this is really sort of in my head: sure, socionics is a theory of cognition, but we don't have access to cognition. There is no way for one human being to know what is going on in another human being's head. It's hard enough (maybe impossible) to know what's going on in our own heads. So obviously we have to use something to deduce cognition. Since we don't have direct, experiential access to others' cognition, we have to make some guesses. Upon what basis do we make those guesses? Behavior. How a person acts in an environment in which he or she has to interact with one or more other persons. Maybe even reports of how they deal with themselves. But it comes down to some action, even if the action is speech, that the individual performs in a social environment, even if the "social environment" is only writing (which is solitary), because writing implies an audience, and is thereby transformed into a social environment. It must be something someone does directed outward, towards the world outside the self (even if it's only talking), that must be the basis for our inquiry into anything about them, from clinical psychology to socionics. In that sense, socionics must be concerned about behavior, because behavior is the only way to deduce cognition.

Now, I know some things you might not consider "behavior" in a colloquial sense, e.g., sitting on a therapist's couch and answering questions. But especially given that we don't usually have the opportunity to interview people about how they think for the sake of determining their type, it's all the more important to realize that some sort of behavior is the window through which we must look (darkly) to see into cognition, in at least 90% of cases.

[silverchris9]

I'm bumping this ancient thread. Partially because I'm curious to see how/if people's typing methodologies have changed since I was here a lot, and partially because I re-read my last post and no one ever responded to it, but it's still a pretty good summary of how I like to type people, when/if I type people. The only changes are that I do it less than I used to, and I think maybe my understanding of how people interact with people of different quadras has changed somewhat. I think maybe I can see how relationships between people who aren't predicted to have great relationships socionics-wise can be good a little better these days.