Typing Methodologies

[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.