Typing Methodologies

[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.