.
.
Last edited by mfckr; 12-25-2014 at 12:49 AM.
What I look for is if a person shows heavy signs of grouping people together mentally, and basing things off of that (Aristocratic), or if a person just sees a lot of individuals more or less (Democratic).Originally Posted by moredhel
This one sticks out like all hell to me - there's a dude I know who I nailed down as "Irrational Aristocratic Extratim", and it took me ages to get him as a Ti-SLE; I couldn't tell much with the P functions at first, he seemed to exhibit morethan I did, but that doesn't exactly say very much
I'm currently on a Rational Aristocratic Extratim who I'm pretty sure is an Fe-EIE; I'll nail it down right now for him actually, he may give off Delta vibes but our Ts don't match at all, and he was blowingall over the place... his whole grouping of "women" as some sort of separate, alien species bewildered me and grossed me out, especially due to the frequency of it, and how much weight he placed on it...
And hell, I almost forgot until Ashton brought it up - I see Positivist/Negativist a hell of a lot too! Lots of the time, it'll be the very first one that I find; lots of those times, it'll be the only one that I find...
p . . . a . . . n . . . d . . . o . . . r . . . a
trad metalz | (more coming)
I use temperament and traits I know are peculiar to particular types, like the SLE's piercing gaze of judgement, or an IEEs enthusiasm about "looking behind" people.
Key words and themes are another big thing. I really love http://www.socionics.us/works/semantics.shtml for that, even though some of the vocab seems only applicable to Russian (e.g. most western Si dominants don't use plant and animal analogies so much). Ne dominants love to talk about "interesting" and often present the idea that they can see something hidden underneath the surface of people or ideas ("seems like <not immediately obvious potential>), Fe dominants are very warm and personable, etc.
Role function through interview is another good method. Asking people for five key words about themselves usually yields one adjective stereotypically associated with their Role function. ESEs often describe themselves as efficient, Ti dominants as friendly or polite, etc.
Like you, I think Quadra is a good one. What's of interest to me is that, even though we're both "Splat!" thinkers due to a dialectical-algorithmic thinking form, you don't use quite the same empirical Splats! as I do, instead opting for a logical approach. This could be F/T in action, or it could be experience.
The member who I inherited most of my typing style from is thehotelambush, and AFAIA he uses basically the same approach of "wait and see for something peculiar to a given type".
Know I'm mistyped?
Why I amnow.
Why I was
DISCLAIMER
The statements expressed in this signature may not necessarily reflect reality.
Woof, I think the empirical approach of "That person just did something that every other person of that type does!" is the least headache-inducing typing method for dumbass SFs like us
Filatova's photos and the socionics.us gallery are both good, though the former has far less mistyped people.
Know I'm mistyped?
Why I am
Why I was
DISCLAIMER
The statements expressed in this signature may not necessarily reflect reality.
Quadra values and IM placement analysis, temperament, DCNH subtype. I pointedly ignore type commonality as a criterion (*looks at Cat King*), as it is ripe ground for fallacious typings; given that the immense variability inherent to human personality (as well as lesser influences, such as the unconscious pull of the id block) means not all people of the same type are gonna act the same.
What do these signs mean—, etc.? Why cannot socionists use symbols Ne, Ni etc. as in MBTI? Just because they have somewhat different meaning. Socionics and MBTI, each in its own way, have slightly modified the original Jung's description of his 8 psychological types. For this reason,
Just one example: in MBTI, Se (extraverted sensing) is associated with life pleasures, excitement etc. By contrast, the socionic function(extraverted sensing) is first and foremost associated with control and expansion of personal space (which sometimes can manifest in excessive aagression, but often also manifests in a capability of managing lots of people and things).
For this reason, we consider comparison between MBTI types and socionic types by functions to be rather useless than useful.
-Victor Gulenko, Dmitri Lytov
Your method seems quite thorough. I'm not a fan of VI personally but I accept someone skilled in it could get quite accurate. That aside its maybe a little on the analytical side for typing on the fly. Is there a method you use when observing behavior?
You consider DCNH subtype in your initial typing?
It's not a bad starting point providing you don't place too much weight on it, in typing I find everything needs to fit into place. Just tonight I finally had that nice confirmation moment on my friends type (ESI), I typed him that weeks ago but I was only sure tonight because of his ignoring function of all things. Basically one of the things I've noticed about him and he noticed about himself is that he doesn't like socialising (Fe style) yet he does it effortlessly when he has to.Woof, I think the empirical approach of "That person just did something that every other person of that type does!" is the least headache-inducing typing method for dumbass SFs like us
Filatova's photos and the socionics.us gallery are both good, though the former has far less mistyped people.
I think the type quirks will be a bigger benefit to me when I know more people of each type in order to pick up their quirks. So far I just know SEI's are overly fond of bath robes...and sleep.
Yup, but secondary to IM analysis. It's exceedingly rare for DCNH to alter my impression of a person's core type.
What do these signs mean—
Just one example: in MBTI, Se (extraverted sensing) is associated with life pleasures, excitement etc. By contrast, the socionic function
For this reason, we consider comparison between MBTI types and socionic types by functions to be rather useless than useful.
-Victor Gulenko, Dmitri Lytov
Functions. All of the extra fluff seems to feed my biases and makes the typing process unnecessarily tedious as you attempt to fit their human characteristics into all these different values and dichotomies.
But you really can't type based on functions given the current state of function descriptions. They're horrible and tainted with the bias of their authors, each one containing a different set of emotionally charged adjectives to describe a type/function, and their tendency towards analogy and example show how weak their theoretical foundation really is. So what I've done is reject them outright and recreate them using the basic concepts of introversion/extroversion =subjectivity-internal/objectivity-external applied to logic/ethics/sensing/intuition. Typing has not necessarily become easier, but it has become more valid imo.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I think the type quirks will be a bigger benefit to me when I know more people of each type in order to pick up their quirks*hemhem*
The sort of things I refer to as "quirks" are more like the tendency XEIs have toward being kind of "on or off", since that's something unique to Fe creatives. They'll tend to always default back to an unexpressive state between moulding their faces like so much incredibly silly putty.
Know I'm mistyped?
Why I am
Why I was
DISCLAIMER
The statements expressed in this signature may not necessarily reflect reality.
.
Last edited by mfckr; 12-25-2014 at 12:49 AM.
I coined my method the Intelligent Design Method of typing.
Click below for more information:
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...09#post1123109
I also use the Open Borders Approach, another one I coined. I am speaking to two fundamentally different views of Socionics.
The Open Borders approach dissolves the Quadra Values mythology….”drains the swamp.” Socionics New Wave still recognizes Quadras but in the same way that England recognizes the royal family. We will call them King and Queen but they don’t have any actual power. Although there may be some values loosely associated with each quadra, there's absolutely no rational basis for treating Quadra Values as an axiomatic principle of Socionics. It's ludicrous to use it as starting point.
The Closed Borders view is the one that is held by pretty much every Socionics School of Thought except for Socionics New Wave. That is, the view – religiously held by some -- that there is such a thing as Quadra Values and that one can or should begin with quadra when typing. So in the classic methodology, first you type Quadra based on Quadra values, whatever that means, and then you narrow it down by one of four types, either through VI or one of the less objective, less serious methods of typing.
Consequently, the VI breakdown for each Socionics type laid down by Socionics New Wave is much better than the breakdown proferred by Socionics.Com. Even though both schools of thought recognize that VI is superior to all other methods of typing, pinterest.com/socionics's breakdown is not inhibited by a Closed Borders Approach. The Open/Closed Borders difference may not be the precise or only reason why the New Wave breakdown is better. However, I can affirmatively state that the New Wave breakdown would not have come out so great if it had been based in the more arbitrary Closed Borders Method.
Reply With Quote
