Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 132

Thread: Typing Methodologies

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    i'll tear down the sky Mattie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    TIM
    NeFi
    Posts
    1,105
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Typing Methodologies

    I don't remember when the last "How do you type!?" thread has been created, but this is going to be contrasting in the manner of "How do you apply Socionics to reality and get something useful out of it?" It's readily apparent that there are differing views which are ultimately the amount of how many members there are here. I thought it would be insightful to share how we all find Socionics useful, such as having personal rules of thumbs or ideologies. I'm hoping this can be less of a "This method is right, this method is wrong" in hopes for a more holistic approach to the subject at large. For example, maybe you VI first and this gives you a better frame of reference to then start deducing what type a person is. Or, when talking to the person in question, you throw out key words or concepts and see how they react to them, and see how that may correlate to type. Also share what about Socionics you'd like there to be clarity/improvement, as well as certain practices or techniques you use. I'm interested to see descriptions along the line of "A Day in the Life of a 'Socionist,'" how an awareness of a process like Socionics has changed how you look at things, and would be helpful for everyone to know.

  2. #2
    ILE - ENTp 1981slater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Spain
    TIM
    ILE (ENTp)
    Posts
    4,870
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default x

    I have been more than 5 years reading about Socionics and Psychology. It's like learning a foreign language: at the beginning, I was slow at reading, I couldn't understand what I was being told, etc. Speaking on Socionics, now I can usually recognize a type promptly: movements, facial expressions, clothes, what they talk about and how they interact with me...
    Typing is an instinct, not a method
    FREE YOUR MIND,
    ILE "Searcher"
    Socionics: ENTp
    DCNH: Dominant --> perhaps Normalizing
    Enneagram: 7w6 "Enthusiast"
    MBTI: ENTJ "Field Marshall" or ENTP "Inventor"
    Astrological sign: Aquarius

    To learn, read. To know, write. To master, teach.

  3. #3
    Creepy-male

    Default

    +1. You learn to pick up on people's type.

  4. #4
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,937
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Typing is an instinct, not a method
    The instinctive approach is near useless. The only reason people engage in it is because they have a religious belief in their own abilities. They think that they are the next "typing messiah" that gets all the answers right just by guessing at them. Meanwhile, everybody reaches different conclusions on any person's type when applying the "vibe-typing" method. If in such a situation only one person can be right about the type, it follows that the rest of them are terminally deluded. Add to this the fact that the person that is "right" across different cases is not even always the same person, and you get a really dismal view of the sanity of people who engage in this childish game.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    TIM
    SLE/LSE sx/sp
    Posts
    2,470
    Mentioned
    76 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post
    The instinctive approach is near useless. The only reason people engage in it is because they have a religious belief in their own abilities. They think that they are the next "typing messiah" that gets all the answers right just by guessing at them. Meanwhile, everybody reaches different conclusions on any person's type when applying the "vibe-typing" method. If in such a situation only one person can be right about the type, it follows that the rest of them are terminally deluded. Add to this the fact that the person that is "right" across different cases is not even always the same person, and you get a really dismal view of the sanity of people who engage in this childish game.
    Well, as far as I know an Si leading person would be interested in health, balance of life, pleasurable sensations. However what about the Si leading types that are fat and live life excessively or the ISFps who are extremely work focused and have risen quite highly in their careers? The health is negligent in one, the balance of life negligent in both, and the pleasurable sensations negligent in the later - perhaps even all three in the latter.

    Unfortunately, socionics, the functions, the types are so vague and ill-defined in any practical sense that so often it is the case that we have to rely on 'intuitive' impressions of peoples types. Even going by 'the book' eg wikisocion produces incorrect assessments of peoples types.

    Socionics is a pseudo science which might not actually even exist. Perhaps it's just a philosophical approach to people and relationships.

    I would like to agree with you and do things without any instinctive approach, but perhaps considering what i've wrote, you could advise me how it is to be avoided? The only way I can see to avoid it is for a person just to create their own understanding or rather - a more correct word - interpretation of socionics, which no matter how well layered it is, is still built upon some form of 'instinct', personal impression etc.

    That socionics isn't objectively defined - I simply back this up by demonstrating every type discussion and every discussion about the functions.

  6. #6
    i'll tear down the sky Mattie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    TIM
    NeFi
    Posts
    1,105
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post
    The instinctive approach is near useless. The only reason people engage in it is because they have a religious belief in their own abilities. They think that they are the next "typing messiah" that gets all the answers right just by guessing at them. Meanwhile, everybody reaches different conclusions on any person's type when applying the "vibe-typing" method. If in such a situation only one person can be right about the type, it follows that the rest of them are terminally deluded. Add to this the fact that the person that is "right" across different cases is not even always the same person, and you get a really dismal view of the sanity of people who engage in this childish game.
    I am generally in agreement with this, but I think it's only fair for you to share what you do instead of coming in just to criticize others.

    Quote Originally Posted by Words View Post
    Unfortunately, socionics, the functions, the types are so vague and ill-defined in any practical sense that so often it is the case that we have to rely on 'intuitive' impressions of peoples types. Even going by 'the book' eg wikisocion produces incorrect assessments of peoples types.
    You bring up a lot of good points and questions, all of which were in my mid as I decided to make this post. I think everyone has to to this conclusion and question what they have established in their minds (this is how my "Socionics journey" went, if you will), but it's possible only certain types (not Socionic) of people will indeed question the validity and consistency of the terms both used by "sources" and by the community. Whether or not they are isn't the ultimate question that everyone will arrive to the same answer, but I do think it's imperative that everyone does question and come to a well thought out answer.

    Quote Originally Posted by Words View Post
    Socionics is a pseudo science which might not actually even exist. Perhaps it's just a philosophical approach to people and relationships.
    More and more I lean towards this, because I find there will never be enough motivation or ability to test Socionics, and if so, anyone can ultimately say anything "inspired" by Socionics' writing. This is what I'd like this thread to be about, I'm curious to know how everyone came to their current understanding and application of Socionics, or at least have people start asking themselves this question. Though, it might turn some discussion moot in others' opinions, which wouldn't be ideal since there are people who think there is a general right way and general wrong way to do this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Words View Post
    I would like to agree with you and do things without any instinctive approach, but perhaps considering what i've wrote, you could advise me how it is to be avoided? The only way I can see to avoid it is for a person just to create their own understanding or rather - a more correct word - interpretation of socionics, which no matter how well layered it is, is still built upon some form of 'instinct', personal impression etc.
    Your own subjective understanding how Socionics and how you deal with things such as Socionics will be the foundation of everything you learn, and it's hard if not impossible to get rid of it, and it's almost unnecessary to. To have it be the focus, well, that's debatable, but that might just go under having a different interpretation like you mentioned. Even Labcoat goes along with a rather predictable manner of responding to certain posts (this isn't to call him out, but rather say that even someone who brings up that you can't allow your instincts to rule your understanding, you ultimately had that instinct already. It's just not completely a bad thing). The only thing I've come up with is to come up with certain criteria and make sure you follow them from the beginning, and then update each time you learn something new.

    Quote Originally Posted by Words View Post
    That socionics isn't objectively defined - I simply back this up by demonstrating every type discussion and every discussion about the functions.

  7. #7
    ._. Aiss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    TIM
    IEI
    Posts
    2,009
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mattie View Post
    I don't remember when the last "How do you type!?" thread has been created, but this is going to be contrasting in the manner of "How do you apply Socionics to reality and get something useful out of it?" It's readily apparent that there are differing views which are ultimately the amount of how many members there are here. I thought it would be insightful to share how we all find Socionics useful, such as having personal rules of thumbs or ideologies. I'm hoping this can be less of a "This method is right, this method is wrong" in hopes for a more holistic approach to the subject at large. For example, maybe you VI first and this gives you a better frame of reference to then start deducing what type a person is. Or, when talking to the person in question, you throw out key words or concepts and see how they react to them, and see how that may correlate to type. Also share what about Socionics you'd like there to be clarity/improvement, as well as certain practices or techniques you use. I'm interested to see descriptions along the line of "A Day in the Life of a 'Socionist,'" how an awareness of a process like Socionics has changed how you look at things, and would be helpful for everyone to know.
    The way you speak of holistic approach yet focus on explicit steps and possibilities sounds Ne to me - internal, but object-focused element.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mattie View Post
    I am generally in agreement with this, but I think it's only fair for you to share what you do instead of coming in just to criticize others.

    You bring up a lot of good points and questions, all of which were in my mid as I decided to make this post. I think everyone has to to this conclusion and question what they have established in their minds (this is how my "Socionics journey" went, if you will), but it's possible only certain types (not Socionic) of people will indeed question the validity and consistency of the terms both used by "sources" and by the community. Whether or not they are isn't the ultimate question that everyone will arrive to the same answer, but I do think it's imperative that everyone does question and come to a well thought out answer.

    More and more I lean towards this, because I find there will never be enough motivation or ability to test Socionics, and if so, anyone can ultimately say anything "inspired" by Socionics' writing. This is what I'd like this thread to be about, I'm curious to know how everyone came to their current understanding and application of Socionics, or at least have people start asking themselves this question. Though, it might turn some discussion moot in others' opinions, which wouldn't be ideal since there are people who think there is a general right way and general wrong way to do this.

    Your own subjective understanding how Socionics and how you deal with things such as Socionics will be the foundation of everything you learn, and it's hard if not impossible to get rid of it, and it's almost unnecessary to. To have it be the focus, well, that's debatable, but that might just go under having a different interpretation like you mentioned. Even Labcoat goes along with a rather predictable manner of responding to certain posts (this isn't to call him out, but rather say that even someone who brings up that you can't allow your instincts to rule your understanding, you ultimately had that instinct already. It's just not completely a bad thing). The only thing I've come up with is to come up with certain criteria and make sure you follow them from the beginning, and then update each time you learn something new.

    You seem to have come into socionics with a preconceived notion of it in mind, of what it is if not how it is - open to learn it, but with a preconception of it itself. This is characteristic of static ego, introverted function of which is rational - the context may be explicit or not, but it's set. As well, rather than consider the existing theory in an abstract matter, you come off as personally involved when speaking of its potential, though not emotional - considering your attitude to it based on its potential.

    The way you speak of sources and then constructing an understanding, updating it, is inherently static again. In static types, things are perceived and add up to a judging framework. In dynamic types, things are judged individually and perceived holistically, resulting in perspective, a mindset rather than a core model. The key concepts here are construction and emergence; both seem to yield comparable results as far as socionics is concerned.

    So static, Ne and Fi. I would probably add that you seem more determined about Fi and natural about Ne, which would suggest Fi covering for Ti-PoLR while you don't seem to feel the need to prove anything about Ne; an IEE dynamic.

    ---

    Well, you did ask for practical examples. There go my mystical vibes.
    Last edited by Aiss; 08-31-2010 at 07:08 PM.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    71
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mattie View Post


    More and more I lean towards this, because I find there will never be enough motivation or ability to test Socionics, and if so, anyone can ultimately say anything "inspired" by Socionics' writing. This is what I'd like this thread to be about, I'm curious to know how everyone came to their current understanding and application of Socionics, or at least have people start asking themselves this question. Though, it might turn some discussion moot in others' opinions, which wouldn't be ideal since there are people who think there is a general right way and general wrong way to do this.
    how much jung have you read? you should read some jung.

  9. #9
    Creepy-Pied Piper

    Default

    Removed at User Request

  10. #10
    Jesus is the cruel sausage consentingadult's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,778
    Mentioned
    109 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mattie View Post
    I don't remember when the last "How do you type!?" thread has been created, but this is going to be contrasting in the manner of "How do you apply Socionics to reality and get something useful out of it?" It's readily apparent that there are differing views which are ultimately the amount of how many members there are here. I thought it would be insightful to share how we all find Socionics useful, such as having personal rules of thumbs or ideologies. I'm hoping this can be less of a "This method is right, this method is wrong" in hopes for a more holistic approach to the subject at large. For example, maybe you VI first and this gives you a better frame of reference to then start deducing what type a person is. Or, when talking to the person in question, you throw out key words or concepts and see how they react to them, and see how that may correlate to type. Also share what about Socionics you'd like there to be clarity/improvement, as well as certain practices or techniques you use. I'm interested to see descriptions along the line of "A Day in the Life of a 'Socionist,'" how an awareness of a process like Socionics has changed how you look at things, and would be helpful for everyone to know.
    Now that I'm an 'experienced' typer, I go largely by processes of transference and counter-transference.
    “I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking

  11. #11
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    8,174
    Mentioned
    759 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    My typing methodology.

    I go with my gut then I test it.

    If I don't have a idea of the type, I investigate until I do, then I test it.

  12. #12
    moredhel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia
    TIM
    LSE (-Si)/9w1/ENTJ
    Posts
    196
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Lightbulb Methods of Typing

    Hi everyone,

    Reading through these forums it's obvious that typing people is a big part of the socionics community. What I have also noticed is people approach it very differently and come to some vastly different conclusions.

    So this is how I type people...

    • First step get a vibe of their quadra

      Alpha=easy going social types, Beta= passionate social types Delta= Easy going serious types, Gamma=Passionate serious types. (This is very rough, my vibe is actually a bit more detailed but it wasn't translating well to text.)


    • If it isn't obvious consider their quadra more closely

      The quadra's are all very different from one another so I find it is a good place to start, as I only need to consider a small subset of socionics theory. As I tend to type people based on my social interaction with them I consider the following things.
      • Do they prefer large groups or small groups? (can be misleading)
      • Do they go with the flow of the group or do they try to steer the group?
      • Are the often animated/passionate?
      • Are they competitive?
      • Do they have strong opinions about people? If so are they likely to express these opinions?
      • Do they prefer practical discussions or "fun" discussions?
        etc...(there's more I was getting bored)

    • If I know them well enough I would next choose their romance type.
    • Once I have decided on a quadra I decide within the context of their quadra are they introverted or extroverted.
    • If I couldn't figured out their romance type I will decide if they are more ethical or logical.
    • This should leave me with 1 type.
    • Lastly I consider if the social roles and cognitive function placement fit.

      If yes it should be a puzzle piece moment like "yes they are defiantly this type". If it's a maybe I would place a tentative type and observe them bit more or consider close alternatives. If it's no I will revise the previous steps and consider where I may of made an incorrect assumption or observation.


    I find this to be a very efficient method and easy as the information on quadra's focuses a lot on group behavior which is the context In which I do most of my typing. It is quite a quick process of elimination. In terms of accuracy I found I could type all of my close friends and I could type about 40% of my acquaintances/friends who I didn't have a 1on1 relationship with while at least getting as far as quadras on the rest.

    I only consider relationships after I've decided on a type and I will not type a person based on a relationship (either to me or between people i'm typing). I will also try not to give types value, IMO all types are equal.

    So how do other people type and do you feel that method/ability in typing could be related to type?
    I feel the above is a very Te method very efficient without having to use detail unless i'm not getting that puzzle piece moment.

  13. #13
    an object in motion woofwoofl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Southern Arizona
    TIM
    x s x p s p s x
    Posts
    2,111
    Mentioned
    329 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Holy crap, I really like the descriptions you have of the quadras

    As for me, I go for what sticks out the most - can I spot an axis of Perceiving functions (Judicious/Decisive Reinin)? Judging functions (Merry/Serious Reinin)? Democratic or Aristocratic? Temperament (getting halfway there on this one is good too)?

    I'll nail down what I can nail down, nail down a few things I can't nail down, and remember which is which, so that if I need to change a thing, I'll know what to change...
    p . . . a . . . n . . . d . . . o . . . r . . . a
    trad metalz | (more coming)

  14. #14
    moredhel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia
    TIM
    LSE (-Si)/9w1/ENTJ
    Posts
    196
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woofwoofl View Post
    Holy crap, I really like the descriptions you have of the quadras

    As for me, I go for what sticks out the most - can I spot an axis of Perceiving functions (Judicious/Decisive Reinin)? Judging functions (Merry/Serious Reinin)? Democratic or Aristocratic? Temperament (getting halfway there on this one is good too)?

    I'll nail down what I can nail down, nail down a few things I can't nail down, and remember which is which, so that if I need to change a thing, I'll know what to change...
    Yeah the quadra Dichotomies are good and I use them in my "vibe" thinking.
    I'm relatively comfortable with the expanded quadra explanations so I tend to check off my questions quite quickly in my head.

    I have trouble typing with Democratic/Aristocratic axis as i'm not really comfortable with how it visibly manifests itself in peoples behavior, beyond putting people in groups vs judging everyone individually that is.

    Temperaments are good but I haven't looked into going beyond Ix vs Ex and I wouldn't necessarily trust the result if I was able to.

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    8,098
    Mentioned
    60 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Post

    .
    Last edited by mfckr; 12-25-2014 at 12:49 AM.

  16. #16
    an object in motion woofwoofl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Southern Arizona
    TIM
    x s x p s p s x
    Posts
    2,111
    Mentioned
    329 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moredhel View Post
    Yeah the quadra Dichotomies are good and I use them in my "vibe" thinking.
    I'm relatively comfortable with the expanded quadra explanations so I tend to check off my questions quite quickly in my head.

    I have trouble typing with Democratic/Aristocratic axis as i'm not really comfortable with how it visibly manifests itself in peoples behavior, beyond putting people in groups vs judging everyone individually that is.

    Temperaments are good but I haven't looked into going beyond Ix vs Ex and I wouldn't necessarily trust the result if I was able to.
    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).

    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 more than 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 blowing all 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)

  17. #17
    Kill4Me's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    TIM
    SLE-Ti 8w7 so/sp
    Posts
    2,608
    Mentioned
    268 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    I coined my method the Intelligent Design Method of typing.

    Click below for more information:

    http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...09#post1123109

  18. #18
    Kill4Me's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    TIM
    SLE-Ti 8w7 so/sp
    Posts
    2,608
    Mentioned
    268 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    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.

  19. #19
    Marie84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    TIM
    EII
    Posts
    2,347
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I go by functions and temperament most often, especially the former. VI has it's place but I wouldn't type someone based on it, it's more like a vague indication
    IMHO if one is going by the classical understanding of the information element descriptions (Model A) it's the most helpful way of seeing a type outside of the personality stereotypes that may be associated with them and their quadras. They explain the basics of the subconscious without overtly boxing every tidbit in

    Other methods such a Renin, subtypes, and many of the user created systems may or may not have their place in being realistically applicable, and I've dabbled in some with half-seriousness, but I feel all in all that they're far too categorical and for me to latch on to so I don't place a lot of confidence in them.
    They, essentially, are meant to explain humanity into precise, systematic, categories that are meant to label the complexities in humans that are too complex to be labeled
    EII INFj
    Forum status: retired

  20. #20
    UDP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    "Come with me if you want to live"
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    14,907
    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moredhel View Post
    Hi everyone,

    Reading through these forums it's obvious that typing people is a big part of the socionics community. What I have also noticed is people approach it very differently and come to some vastly different conclusions.
    Yeah.

    As you may already know....
    A lot of people especially at first are ignorant of how much they know and don't know, and often have baggage or certain things that "they know are representative of a type' that are not actually. So it's a process of continuously challenging those assumptions.

    I don't think there will ever be much uniformity in process (or even results), at least on this forum. There are too many variations of understanding and assertiveness about opinions, and I think it's one of the biggest hurdles to getting into things.

    So how do other people type and do you feel that method/ability in typing could be related to type?
    How someone approaches socionics and typing people seems related to their ability to grasp other models in social sciences, and their ability (or experience) in weeding through various pieces of information, evidence or actual knowledge of a theory.

    Different people will have shortcomings along those lines that are often based on their type. What people put faith in and why they put faith in that reasoning is often related to their type, in certain ways... in how they put a value on some things. Some very generalized examples: sometimes "F types" will base their feelings about a person based on a "feeling" they have about them, and trust their feelings about them, in regard to how they feel about certain types, more so than 'what socionics actually says'. That's obviously also possible for any person or type to do. Sometimes T types will over-focus on a piece of data and not understand how it actually relates to the person because they don't understand the person or their relationship to them very well.

    things like that

  21. #21
    Humanist Beautiful sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    EII land
    TIM
    EII INFj
    Posts
    26,935
    Mentioned
    699 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    My method:


    VI -because this is a static impression and I'm a static valuer/type, this is very easy for me to do whereas you would probably need to watch and observe a person's actions for a while in order to gather all the intel on them LOL

    Dichotomies -because it can be observed with written language and values that the person expresses; it's easy to spot who is a positivist and negativist.

    http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p...le=Dichotomies

    Functional analysis -here I look at which functions are in which position in the person's psychic block; most is using Jung's method of typing.

    Relationship observation -Here I observe who they commonly interact with from the people who's types I am certain of and who they misunderstand, who they ignore, who they are attracted and repulsed by. I am an Fi type, so this is easy for me to do and because it is a static image. I also look at the person's mood here. Si types, especially ISTp tend to make value judgement based on who they favor or not and on top of that they can be very reactive in an irrational shortly thought out way so they are easy to spot.

    Quadra Values -certain expressed language and style is particular to each quadra and members share those values

    Temperament -
    Last edited by Beautiful sky; 07-20-2011 at 02:41 AM.
    -
    Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
    Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?


    I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE

    Best description of functions:
    http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html

  22. #22
    moredhel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia
    TIM
    LSE (-Si)/9w1/ENTJ
    Posts
    196
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by octopuslove View Post
    Hi supposed conflictor! My typing method is pretty much identical to yours, interesting...
    lol hello conflictor. I actually don't get along too badly with IEI's accept when I get left alone in a room with one, then even the crickets get embarrassed at the awkward attempts at conversation.

    BTW I like your method .

    Quote Originally Posted by Maritsa33 View Post
    Dichotomies -because it can be observed with written language and values that the person expresses; it's easy to spot who is a positivist and negativist.
    This is the only axis I had a problem with in my own typing. While I do display negativist qualities at work because everything is so woefully inefficient (public sector for you), I'm generally quite optimistic in life and in my interactions with other people. I can see why my type is negativist as it's present in my thinking but more often than not I don't come across that way.
    I'm also a bit wary as the only grouping of this axis in the small groups is romance types yet nothing in the explanations relates the groups to this axis.

    That said, it is an easy one to observe but use with caution .

  23. #23
    Humanist Beautiful sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    EII land
    TIM
    EII INFj
    Posts
    26,935
    Mentioned
    699 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moredhel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by octopuslove View Post
    Hi supposed conflictor! My typing method is pretty much identical to yours, interesting...
    lol hello conflictor. I actually don't get along too badly with IEI's accept when I get left alone in a room with one, then even the crickets get embarrassed at the awkward attempts at conversation.

    BTW I like your method .

    Quote Originally Posted by Maritsa33 View Post
    Dichotomies -because it can be observed with written language and values that the person expresses; it's easy to spot who is a positivist and negativist.
    This is the only axis I had a problem with in my own typing. While I do display negativist qualities at work because everything is so woefully inefficient (public sector for you), I'm generally quite optimistic in life and in my interactions with other people. I can see why my type is negativist as it's present in my thinking but more often than not I don't come across that way.
    I'm also a bit wary as the only grouping of this axis in the small groups is romance types yet nothing in the explanations relates the groups to this axis.

    That said, it is an easy one to observe but use with caution .
    Being optimistic in life doesn't have anything to do with that dichotomy. It's in how you see things. For example and a very easy contrast is one between my boyfriend and I

    He says: We only have an hour.

    I say: We have a whole hour.

    In the above, you might observe that I see the potential and expense of time in a positive regard, while his Ni PoLR acts out in how worried/pressured/stressed/tense and rushed he becomes at observing it's limited movement...limit is confining and causes one to be negativist, while I see no limit, it's expansive and anything can happen; I'm ready for twists and turns and they don't bother me. He's likely to see the constraint and prepare for things...hence planning. I will post an interesting link to a book I've been reading lately which touches on the importance of both of these types in the Delta Lounge today or tomorrow.

    Are you the type of an LSE who is typically early or late?
    -
    Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
    Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?


    I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE

    Best description of functions:
    http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html

  24. #24
    moredhel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia
    TIM
    LSE (-Si)/9w1/ENTJ
    Posts
    196
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maritsa33 View Post
    Being optimistic in life doesn't have anything to do with that dichotomy. It's in how you see things. For example and a very easy contrast is one between my boyfriend and I

    He says: We only have an hour.

    I say: We have a whole hour.

    In the above, you might observe that I see the potential and expense of time in a positive regard, while his Ni PoLR acts out in how worried/pressured/stressed/tense and rushed he becomes at observing it's limited movement...limit is confining and causes one to be negativist, while I see no limit, it's expansive and anything can happen; I'm ready for twists and turns and they don't bother me. He's likely to see the constraint and prepare for things...hence planning. I will post an interesting link to a book I've been reading lately which touches on the importance of both of these types in the Delta Lounge today or tomorrow.

    Are you the type of an LSE who is typically early or late?
    Optimism was an efficient generalization. What I meant was I word things in a positivist way probably greater than half the time even though I tend to think in a "there's not enough time" negativist kind of way.
    I attribute it to being quite laid back and optimistic and making a conscious effort not to stress other people out.
    So while Negativist would be accurate for me I would be very surprised if someone could accurately type me using that axis.

    As far as my timing i'm the kind of LSE who's late to places I don't want to be (work) and early to places I'm looking forward to (birthdays), though I've had to teach myself the concept of fashionably late as I was always arriving well before everyone else . I'm also tend to be late when getting there on time requires getting up early .

  25. #25
    Bananas are good. Aleksei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    The Rift
    TIM
    C-EIE, 7-4-8 sx/sp
    Posts
    1,624
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by octopuslove View Post
    Hi supposed conflictor!
    Supposed being the operative...
    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, (Ne) is not exactly the same as Ne in MBTI.

    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

  26. #26
    not gonna be around as much anymore
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    TIM
    C-IEE
    Posts
    1,255
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Lots of different methods; they all get kind of jumbled in my head, though, when I try to utilize them to type RL people. I look for clues about...

    Temperament

    Club

    Merry/Serious

    Relationships where I am positive of at least one typing, to give me clues about the other person's possible type/quadrant.

    Functions, particularly Bold functions as these are easier to notice. And then with further observation, try to place these functions into the Model where they seem to make the most sense.

    VI. I only use this tool, however, to identify when someone I meet seems to resemble (in looks, words, voice, physical attitude) someone whom I have already confidently typed. And then, I only really allow myself to narrow it down to a Club; if I go any further in my VI attempts, I hardly take the typing seriously without other methods to back it up.
    My life's work (haha):
    http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/blog.php?b=709
    Input, PLEASEAnd thank you

  27. #27
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    8,174
    Mentioned
    759 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default A methodology for measuring sociotype

    Quote Originally Posted by InkStrider View Post
    True. The question is, how could this be addressed? People use different 'type indicators' to gauge a person's sociotype, which is probably the root of typing discrepancies.
    I have a few ideas. IMO the only real way is a more form of information analysis that does not rely on questionnaires and self-reporting but based on choices(information preference) analysis.

    More akin to Google +1, Facebook Like and rating movies. I was engaged in the Netflix prize prior to doing socionics seriously and started studying socionics again to see if it could help my analytics, one of the most common methods and at the core of all analysis like this is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singula..._decomposition which generates 2^x categories of indicating and contraindicating values(significant choices will fall into one or the other category). Think of SVD as a categorization prior to a prediction.

    Of course this could produce a type prediction, 2^x categories with choices that would indicate one type or a contratype(i.e the conflictor).

    This is a common techniques in information analysis, and is used in many schools of application, any number of systems will generate 2^x categories for prediction. Including choosing what sort of advertising to display, whether or not something is a security threat or whether or not you would like a movie. I would like to do something like this for socionics, but this is the sort of thing that takes thousands upon thousands of hours of work to implement.

    This isn't really anything that is related to this thread. So I will move it.

  28. #28
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    8,174
    Mentioned
    759 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by octo View Post
    I have also thought of a methodology for type prediction which would be wholly empirically constructed, but it would require some level of statistical analysis which I am incapable of . It's based on the construction of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, which was developed empirically due to issues where a questions designed to test for certain traits in practice elicited the wrong response (e.g. paranoid people were actually more like to answer "false" to the statement "I think most people would lie to get ahead" than a normal population). So it doesn't actually matter whether the statement is true or not, the only thing taken into account is what answer a specific group are more likely to put down.

    Essentially it will be a questionnaire with lots (100-300) of seemingly arbitrary questions which don't appear to point to a specific type or dichotomy (Do you prefer red or blue? Do you consider yourself a good driver?) but are statistically correlated to a type (along the lines of Aquagraph's "everything is type related to some degree" thread).

    The main advantage of this test is that it controls for confirmatory bias, which in my opinion is the main problem with current typing tests - if you have a reasonable grasp of the basics of socionics, you can easily guess the answers which would type you as whatever type you want to be. But with this test, the only way to "cheat" is if you know the statistical correlations of each random question to type. It would also control for exaggeration problems (e.g. IEIs responding to stereotype threat by answering "I am bloody awesome at sports thankyou very much! Intuitives can be good at sports too! I have trophies!" )

    The obvious problem with this test is constructing it - you would need a large and diverse population of people who are reliably typed to fill out massive questionnaires, then sort through all the questions to find the ones that are actually statistically significant, and analysing the hell out of a lot of data. But the construction process would actually be quite interesting since you'll actually end up with definitive and quantitative answers to "Is It Type-Related?".
    This propose methodology is similar to SVD analysis, except SVD analysis determines the statistically correlated choices(figures out what question/data is related and what it's related to) based on a working data set and a predicted result data set(which is known but not analyzed). It could take normalized data from any stream of information, writing, movie rating, +1 on a webpage or a like to a friend's status comment. It takes these seeming non-related events and uses it to generate a prediction on the kind of data that would later possibly be liked or +1 or written. This mechanism creates the correlations and then associate the correlations with a category and then makes a prediction based on that. I think the predictive mechanism may only be so accurate(but better then guessing and often highly accurate), but the association of the correlations with a category could produce a sociotype prediction.

    How to tune this to determine sociotype is not something that's I'm sure of, it might also include too much NTR related information. It could be that only certain predictions can be looked at for type related data, like duration of close relationship with another person being analyzed, etc.

  29. #29
    Punk
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    TIM
    ESE
    Posts
    1,645
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think there should be more in the distinctions of archetype versus conditional behavior. But what may be more archetypal for one person, may be conditional behavior for another. This way socionics can attempt focus on what is more relevant for a person.

    For instance, I've always been very introverted. I consider my self intrinsically introverted - archetypal really. But some other people won't necessarily feel they are extroverted or introverted intrinsically, might legitimately waver. And some might find that they pretty much have to live as an extrovert in everything they do - archetypal for them.

    It would be kind of cool this way because then you can find statistical correlations to what types a person can or will be depending on the situation. It wouldn't throw out any of the theory either, but make it more broad in a more intellectually honest manner. I don't have any recommendations on how to do that at the moment, but I wanted to share this perspective at least.

  30. #30
    The Soul Happy-er JWC3's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,801
    Mentioned
    37 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default How do you type?

    When you want to figure out what someone's type is how do you go about doing it?
    Easy Day

  31. #31
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    17,948
    Mentioned
    162 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JWC3 View Post
    When you want to figure out what someone's type is how do you go about doing it?
    As a matter of fact, I don't. There aren't many people in real life that I actually want to type just to see whether we're compatible. I mean those are fleeting and fragmentary to begin with as in passing - you see them once or maybe twice. I say 'blah', that person says 'blah' and it is over. No love lost.

    People who stayed with me and vice versa, well, that's something else. I've been here for over 3 yrs, on this forum, and to be honest I didn't even think in terms of typology. I usually know whom I get along with and most importantly whom with not, so I might say those are in my quadra, the ones I get along with fine, of course.

    Ye sure, I can type them but do not put much stock into it, I just enjoy it, the interaction. As for typing itself, I pay attention to what they say to each other. Things they do.

  32. #32
    escaping anndelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp
    Posts
    6,359
    Mentioned
    215 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JWC3 View Post
    When you want to figure out what someone's type is how do you go about doing it?
    When I did type, it was usually done as an after thought.
    Preferably I interacted w the person, or came across them interacting with others. Over time, some things they do/say started showing up regularly in a variety of contexts. Over still more time it might happen enough times that it would suddenly link up in my mind as a good example of some portion of socionics hypothesis. What that portion is depends on what that part of the person that kept showing itself was. I usually didn't get a full blown type from this.

    When it came to family and long-term friends, I typed by looking back over the years to see what may have consistently shown up. I would also talk with my friend/bro who was into socionics and who knew the people being typed. We'd share and compare thoughts.

    When I seemed to regularly conflict or disagree with someone, I might spend some time trying to figure out what was at the heart of those conflicts/disagreements, and it might link up as an example of a conflict/disagreement that might occur between different portions of socionics hypothesis. As in other contexts, this rarely gave a full blown typing.

    I see no problem with saying PeJi vs PiJe, or ExFx, or any other portional typing. I'd rather see this than quick judgments over misinterpretations (of person and/or of socionics portions).
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp

  33. #33
    The Soul Happy-er JWC3's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,801
    Mentioned
    37 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anndelise View Post
    When I seemed to regularly conflict or disagree with someone, I might spend some time trying to figure out what was at the heart of those conflicts/disagreements, and it might link up as an example of a conflict/disagreement that might occur between different portions of socionics hypothesis. As in other contexts, this rarely gave a full blown typing.
    You just blew my mind. I'm terribly bad at typing people from memory, I always need to be thinking about socionics while I'm interacting with them to get any sort of type understanding, but I can't believe I never thought to remember conflicts. Those are probably some of the more vivid memories I have and might make it incredibly easy for me to type my father.

    Thanks, I really appreciate the insight.
    Easy Day

  34. #34
    escaping anndelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp
    Posts
    6,359
    Mentioned
    215 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JWC3 View Post
    You just blew my mind. I'm terribly bad at typing people from memory, I always need to be thinking about socionics while I'm interacting with them to get any sort of type understanding, but I can't believe I never thought to remember conflicts. Those are probably some of the more vivid memories I have and might make it incredibly easy for me to type my father.

    Thanks, I really appreciate the insight.
    Glad I said something useful.

    I would suggest though to try to view the conflicts/disagreements as if from a third person perspective...as if watching a movie or two friends going at it. This helps to look at the conflict itself and not something as vague as 'conflictor relations'. It also removes any bias one may have regarding one's type. In this way, the conflct might support a self-typing, or it might open the mind up to a possible alternative typing. (but that could just be me not settling on a judgment call easily, heh)
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp

  35. #35
    globohomo aixelsyd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    TIM
    SLI 5w6
    Posts
    1,168
    Mentioned
    43 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I don' even think I'm fully aware of it when I do it but it usually starts with observing the person with their movements, posture, facial expression and comparing the sum of that to others I've previously observed. Then it goes to what they talk about and how they talk about whatever it is, what they respond favorably or unfavorably towards, what people they get along with and choose to spend time with, what makes them mad or incites criticism and how they critique.

    It's really not a neat or complicated process. I figured out pretty quickly someone was Alpha irrational. The Ti/Fe valuing was obvious. He would point out errors in thought and statements due to their logical inconsistencies and make fun of the skewed logic by applying that logic to other scenarios and make the person who said something moderately stupid to look really dumb. He was very receptive to quirky but light feel good entertainment and creature comforts and would not tolerate anything overly dry or anything dealing with deep feelings, especially that of the negative sort. I have this guy down as ILE (after extensive exposure in different situations with various individuals) but I went between SEI and ILE for a while until I felt it was more obvious where his strengths lied and when I figured the extent of discomfort Fi caused him.

    My relations with him were where I began to say little in anticipation of him finding fault with my illogical statements and my talk of likes and dislikes and personal relations being a source of offense (I was told in early stages of our relationship that he didn't care about my likes or dislikes after I thoughtlessly stated something that delved into that area and I saw similar rejection with some choice of entertainment of mine and with statements made from various ESIs and when we had Fi talk time which almost did not go very well).

    Anyways, that's one example with someone who is more obviously intolerant of Fi/Te in particular versus being descriptive of an individual who is more inclined to be more accepting of non-valued IMs, if that makes sense. Typing became easier when I noticed types within a type that share more obvious similarities than other 'types in a type' that are of the same type, technically, but fall into some subtype (I'm not talking about rational or irrational subtypes but different categories altogether that are subjective to my own perceptions of individuals in context of typology).

    I then didn't fall into bewilderment when observing ILE A and ILE B and wondering why they were displaying such different surface behavior but displaying acute understanding of one another's thought processes as if they were their own.

    As an after thought, this shit really does sound crazy. Oh well.
    Last edited by aixelsyd; 03-27-2012 at 01:02 AM.

  36. #36
    Humanist Beautiful sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    EII land
    TIM
    EII INFj
    Posts
    26,935
    Mentioned
    699 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    I need to come to a conclusion about the person's type. Then I can develop my approach or "match" them if they want me to. etc. I'm very good at making a decision/conclusion, but when I get indecisive, it's usually that I'm considering a big picture or something that needs to go into that picture before I make my conclusion. When I do make a conclusion, that's it; that's the conclusion and it's usually not easy for me to change my own judgment on something that I'm very confident about.
    -
    Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
    Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?


    I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE

    Best description of functions:
    http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html

  37. #37
    High Priestess glam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,371
    Mentioned
    68 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by glam View Post
    post
    even though my post is 3 years old, i think i still pretty much approach typing the same way.

  38. #38
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,937
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    i like the Temperaments, Quadras and Clubs; each of these offers its own snapshot based intuitive perspective that is integrated into a composite intuition on a person's type. functions i have started putting less stock in over the years; they are more like phantoms of the theory (like particles in quantum mechanics) than real things that can be pointed at and shown, or even "seen" beyond what Ts, Qs and Cs can tell you.

    now, that is just the first stage of the process. after you've intuitively decided on a typing or a partial typing (such as IxTp; which i strongly encourage) by this method, you need to find more demonstrable features of typing eligibility to be able to meaningfully contribute to a typing debate. intuition can be a guide to the process of finding things that can approximate (by which i expressly don't mean reach) the solidity of empirical proof, but as a mere "as offered" confession it is insufficient. the search should be for things of which both the "measurement" (i.e. whether it is the case) and the pertinence (i.e. what it means, in what way it is relevant) are not publicly disputed (much). but on a community wide level there should also be means of settling disputes on what matters and how facts pertaining to typings are established...

    the second stage is where i (and by my estimation pretty much everyone) gets stuck, which is why i don't spend much time discussing typings anymore. the only way to really fix the process is to introduce an extensive academic environment complete with empirical testing and statistical correlation work being done, but the resources for that just aren't here, not to mention much of a motivation for it. and this assumes somewhat liberally that in the end it would be possible in the first place.

  39. #39
    Pookie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    TIM
    IEI-Ni 6w5-9-2 So/Sx
    Posts
    2,372
    Mentioned
    112 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Merry/Serious is almost always easy to figure out based on the following question: Do they seem to have time to entertain my "nonsense", as it has been affectionately referred to. If they have Ti as valued and conscious, they do. Sometimes if they have Te ego they do as well. But if they don't they're most usually a serious type.

    Temperment is relatively easy to figure out. As is Static/Dynamic. Sometimes educated guesses(adlibs) can lead to accurate end products after you get temperament.

    The Essence of the quadras is easy to differentiate in my mind, so i'll use those on those typings where 3 of the 4 letters make sense.


    But i never settle into concrete certainty for anything, because these are largely concepts and concepts are based on perception and not fact. What purpose does it serve to transmute the flexible concept into concete fact? <- Te Polr maybe

    I dont think VI'ing features or visual appearance has any merit whatsoever, but i do think there's value in observing mannerisms and similarity in behavior.
    Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.

  40. #40
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    17,948
    Mentioned
    162 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    I usually just focus on what I read and apply it on this forum - most keep to myself in my head (just to check whether it coincides with user self-typings or not), some spit out and this Socionics via Absurd. With a little practice you too, can be disco dancing with the best.

    And facts do speak for themselves without interpretation - not unless one wants to interpret an event by twisting the facts to suit something.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •