Typing Methodologies

[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]

.

[Skeptic]

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.

But yeah. I agree w/ you that you don't need to use a certain IE in order to see the IE. All you need to do is learn how to recognize the symptoms of it. Just as say, a psychiatrist can recognize symptoms of schizophrenia without themselves being schizophrenic. However, being able to merely recognize an IE should not be mistaken for actually understanding the nature it…



I don't like this emphasis.



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

Hopefully there is little bending of anything and you are good at interpreting people's motives. If I had to make a mistake, I would rather it be seperate from socionics and more focused on the interpretation of another so that the mistake with socionics does not appear every time I try to type someone (i.e. concluding beta NFs are concerned with people's feelings at a party comes up every time you type a beta NF as opposed to concluding that the way a specific person was concerned with the party was beta NF). It's a case by case thing as opposed to universalizing the descriptions to meet all the beta NFs you know.

Knowing someone real well is what removes doubt. I'll always be doubtful of my typings unless I know them really well; so long as there is a small chance that I am wrong I will be doubtful.

[glam]

i don't really have a strict "method." i just use whatever i can to determine their Model A - i use different things (listed below) to try and determine IM preferences, functions, dichotomies, etc. to try and piece everything together.

for example i might observe that a person is extroverted, -superego, and strong in , so i'd conclude EIE. 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 look at different things, including but not necessarily limited to

- how they communicate and interact with others and their environment
- their relationships and the types of the people they are close to - friends, their significant other, etc.
- what causes them to arrive at their conclusions - determining their thought process
- their behaviors and preferences, if i can reasonably determine something type-related is manifesting itself
- their overall "vibe" and VI: body language, physical presence, expressions, demeanor, eye gaze, etc.
- my own reaction to them
- how they compare to other people i have typed

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 use the 2-subtype system when i can recognize them. a lot of times i can determine someone's type but they may not come across as a certain subtype so i simply don't give them one. i don't find it extremely important to assign subtypes.

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.

[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.