Typing Methodologies

[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.

[mfckr]

.