Factors Behind Common Mistypings

[tcaudilllg]

I would point to Ryu as a person who believed for the longest time that they were their mirage. Typing mistakes start at home.

[Nico1e]

Well, if mirror switching is a top mistake, how is it to be avoided?

I find the quasi thing less likely for me with people I actually know; quadra considerations seem to sort it out.

My feeling about mirror switching: This is actually not a very bad mistake. If you mistype them as their mirror, they're still in the right quadra, they'll still get along with the other quadra members, they'll still have some degree of attraction towards their duals and activators. The results will still be relatively peaceful and satisfying for the person, and the intertype relations theory will mostly match their reality. So yeah, I'd categorize the mirror mistyping as 'Least Concern.'

However, being typed as something in a completely different quadra is the one that bothers me the most. That means that you'll be in totally the wrong place, with duals and activators who aren't at all attractive/attracted to you, people who don't understand you at all, and you'll feel disappointed and disillusioned with socionics in general and will have a tendency to say 'All of this intertype relations stuff is B.S.' It will be the 'forever alone' thing again - 'nobody has ever understood me, nobody ever will, and socionics didn't help me with this.'

So actually, the consequences of being mistyped as your mirror are the least worrisome to me, and in my opinion, the lowest priority.

I agree about the quasis sorting themselves out, when you can watch people interacting with others in the real world. It's a lot harder online.

I never noticed this thread before. This is really interesting!

[Nico1e]

Beware of the dreaded 'Null' mistyping, being mistyped as one's own Identical. Of all possible mistypings, this is the most difficult to notice and troubleshoot. Even the most skillful and experienced socionists have fallen for this one. It is the most common of all possible mistypings, as your Identical behaves just like you in every way. Null mistypings can persist for years before they are finally caught and corrected.

[anndelise]

Beware of the dreaded 'Null' mistyping, being mistyped as one's own Identical. Of all possible mistypings, this is the most difficult to notice and troubleshoot. Even the most skillful and experienced socionists have fallen for this one. It is the most common of all possible mistypings, as your Identical behaves just like you in every way. Null mistypings can persist for years before they are finally caught and corrected.

[FDG]

IMHO, it's mostly due to:

- lack of real-life observational ability, some people are slightly more obsessive (me included) about typing their real-life comrades and acquaintances, others much less so, thus they might not be able to understand the full scope of a given type.
- conflating socionics traits with unrelated personality traits, socionics mostly deals with intertype relations, temperament and reinin dichtomies; OTOH you'll often see people base their typings on stuff like "he dresses well", "he likes football", "he is a loner", bla bla

[woofwoofl]

Well, if mirror switching is a top mistake, how is it to be avoided?

I find the quasi thing less likely for me with people I actually know; quadra considerations seem to sort it out.

My feeling about mirror switching: This is actually not a very bad mistake. If you mistype them as their mirror, they're still in the right quadra, they'll still get along with the other quadra members, they'll still have some degree of attraction towards their duals and activators. The results will still be relatively peaceful and satisfying for the person, and the intertype relations theory will mostly match their reality. So yeah, I'd categorize the mirror mistyping as 'Least Concern.'

However, being typed as something in a completely different quadra is the one that bothers me the most. That means that you'll be in totally the wrong place, with duals and activators who aren't at all attractive/attracted to you, people who don't understand you at all, and you'll feel disappointed and disillusioned with socionics in general and will have a tendency to say 'All of this intertype relations stuff is B.S.' It will be the 'forever alone' thing again - 'nobody has ever understood me, nobody ever will, and socionics didn't help me with this.'

So actually, the consequences of being mistyped as your mirror are the least worrisome to me, and in my opinion, the lowest priority.

I agree about the quasis sorting themselves out, when you can watch people interacting with others in the real world. It's a lot harder online.

I never noticed this thread before. This is really interesting!

As far as avoiding Mirror typings is concerned, I look for Positivist/Negativist and cognitive styles (of which Positivist/Negativist is half) in addition to temperaments, those all can clear things up big time...

[EyeSeeCold]

Reasons for mistypings:

A. Stupidity
B. General lacking in the ability to assess a person's overall character
C. All of the above

/thread

[Nico1e]

As far as avoiding Mirror typings is concerned, I look for Positivist/Negativist and cognitive styles (of which Positivist/Negativist is half) in addition to temperaments, those all can clear things up big time...

If anyone manages to convince me to learn the dichotomies, it will probably be you. I haven't learned them yet, but every time you talk about them, I become slightly more convinced that they would be useful to know.

[Suz]

Beware of the dreaded 'Null' mistyping, being mistyped as one's own Identical. Of all possible mistypings, this is the most difficult to notice and troubleshoot. Even the most skillful and experienced socionists have fallen for this one. It is the most common of all possible mistypings, as your Identical behaves just like you in every way. Null mistypings can persist for years before they are finally caught and corrected.

yeah and it's sometimes hard to tell on oneself how one acts. This is actually one reason i mistyped myself initially, because i didn't recognize myself in the IEE descriptions until i read one that was written by an IEE.

[Nico1e]

This thread is awesome. I'm bumping it again. In fact I think I'm going to link to it or save it somewhere. I think this thread deserves to be made 'sticky' so that it will always be available at the top of the list as a reference. It is extremely useful to learn this and understand what are the most likely mistypes. This could be cleaned up and organized even more.

I myself like the idea of 'mistypings of least/greatest concern.' What are the consequences of a particular mistype? Is it that big a deal? Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

[Raver]

I think mistypings can occur as a result of looking too much at superficial reasons. For instance, that person likes to rest a lot, okay he must be ego. Oh, that person likes to dominate over others a lot, okay he must be ego. I think you need to look deeper than that and look at people's overall character to find out their true type. Some people are incredibly easy to type, it just screams at you, but for others its a lot less obvious and you either don't bother typing them or you risk typing them wrong.

Socionics is just one of those things that you can't really prove for 100% and then you have to rely on group approval to arrive on some kind of accepted belief online. In real life you just have to rely on your own judgement for accuracy, which is highly dependent on your level of competency. This is why anyone can change their type at any moments notice and you'll get half the people agreeing with the change and the other half thinking the person had just a lost a grasp of who they are.

[EyeSeeCold]

I think mistypings can occur as a result of looking too much at superficial reasons. For instance, that person likes to rest a lot, okay he must be ego. Oh, that person likes to dominate over others a lot, okay he must be ego. I think you need to look deeper than that and look at people's overall character to find out their true type. Some people are incredibly easy to type, it just screams at you, but for others its a lot less obvious and you can either not bother typing them or you risk typing them wrong. Socionics is just one of those things that you can't really prove for 100% and that you just have rely on group approval to arrive on some kind of accepted belief. This is why anyone can change their type at any moments notice and you'll get half the people agreeing with the change and the other half thinking the person has a lost a grasp of themselves.

If some people are more obvious than others, perhaps it's the stereotype you see so clearly, and not really the core type.

[Raver]

If some people are more obvious than others, perhaps it's the stereotype you see so clearly, and not really the core type.

Yes, this is how mistypings can occur if you look at superfluous reasons to type someone. However, some people can be accurately typed easily if their overall behavior adequately matches that of the type.

[EyeSeeCold]

Yes, this is how mistypings can occur if you look at superfluous reasons to type someone. However, some people can be accurately typed easily if their overall behavior adequately matches that of the type.

Which is a superficial reason, that would be by stereotype.

[EyeSeeCold]

.

It seems to me that from the vantage point of the people that are not the typee, Socionics works in such a way that Energy and Information metabolism mixes to the point of obscuring a person's type across several types. Another reason, I believe, is that an incomprehensive model forms the basis for most of the interpretations people have of the types. If not mistyped between Quasis, a person's range of mistypes and 'true type' usually falls within the true type's Ego +/- function group. Delta STs are mixed for Alpha NT or Gamma SF, Beta NFs are mixed for Alpha NT or Gamma SF etc. When looked at wholly, this seems to make no sense(and even possibly argues subtypes).

There are 8 elements, but when applied to the Model A, there becomes 16 sub-elements, 2 versions of each 8. This must be acknowledged as something crucial to both the theory and typing, not just because of its corrective implications for theory, but because it would shed light on the nuances between two types holding the same element to the extent that a certain mistype would be clearly inaccurate. The practice of typing and observation of types would greatly benefit.

Maybe there is a better model out there, I don't know, but right now the full Model A, which depicts the Narrator/Taciturn functions and groups is the most important matter to be focusing on to deal with the mistyping situation.


For example, INTj and INFp, they are commonly mixed and associated as evidenced on these forums by various members. Previously, one might have attributed the accentuated Hidden Agenda of the INFp to be the reason for similarity, while at the same time the Hidden Agenda of the INTj is ignored as a factor in this speculation of similarity. They both have different Hidden Agendas, so they both must be looked at holistically.

INTjs:
Base Reasonable Logic Creative Merry Intuition.
Mobilizing Merry Sensing Dual-Seeking Reasonable Ethics

INFps:
Base Merry Intuition Creative Resolute Ethics
Mobilizing Resolute Logic Dual-Seeking Merry Sensing

In their natural Base state, INTjs are most similar to the ESTj, for they share Base Reasonable Logic(Ti-/Te+); while INFps are most similar to the ENTp, for they share Base Merry Intuition(Ni-/Ne+). In their Creative state, INTjs are most similar to the ENFj(Ne+/Ni-); while INFps are most similar to the ESFp(Fe+/Fi-). There is a clear divide of Ej+Tj vs Ep+Fp, and if there was an INTj or INFp mistyped surely the problem could be solved now by determining which group does the person fit most in.This should form the basis of how types are looked at in terms of oscillation in order to pinpoint a type among mistypes, and quite possibly even subtypes(if they do indeed exist, that is).


Unconscious IM and EM manifestations can also affect the situation. Sn leads the INTj to ISFp/ESTp-like pursuits, while Tn leads the INFp to ISTj/ENTj-like pursuits.

[MisterNi]

Great post krig! I seem to be having a bit of a problem with quasi at the moment and I'll try your method to sort out my dilemma between Ni-ENTj and Ti-ENTp.

[Krig the Viking]

If not mistyped between Quasis, a person's range of mistypes and 'true type' usually falls within the true type's Ego +/- function group. Delta STs are mixed for Alpha NT or Gamma SF, Beta NFs are mixed for Alpha NT or Gamma SF etc.

Except Kindred and Business are two of the top five most common mistypings, from what I've seen, which kind of argues against this theory, doesn't it?

There are 8 elements, but when applied to the Model A, there becomes 16 sub-elements, 2 versions of each 8. This must be acknowledged as something crucial to both the theory and typing, not just because of its corrective implications for theory, but because it would shed light on the nuances between two types holding the same element to the extent that a certain mistype would be clearly inaccurate. The practice of typing and observation of types would greatly benefit.

Maybe there is a better model out there, I don't know, but right now the full Model A, which depicts the Narrator/Taciturn functions and groups is the most important matter to be focusing on to deal with the mistyping situation.

I used to agree with Model B (which is what you're talking about), until I started thinking more closely about it, and realized there are a lot of things that don't really make sense. Like why, for example, is +Ti always blocked with -Ni in the Conscious Ego, but never -Si? After all, it can be blocked with -Si in the Shadow Ego, why not the conscious one? I've yet to find an explanation for that.

The biggest thing for me, however, was realizing that all +/- related phenomenon can be adequately explained by the "classic" Model A, which I talked about in more detail in this thread: Eliminating the Need for Model B?

Basically, my conclusion was that the "sub-elements" are not distinct elements at all, but a single element being used in two different ways, in conjunction with two other elements. +Ti and -Ti are the same element, it's just that Ti+Se works differently from Ti+Ne.

[EyeSeeCold]

Except Kindred and Business are two of the top five most common mistypings, from what I've seen, which kind of argues against this theory, doesn't it?

Well, it's not exactly theory but what actually happens. I went through the Typing Spreadsheet Google document, and the most common typings were within the range I described. It's something I've even noticed on the forum, people generally zero in onto those same types. But what you bring up is right, which deals with the way classical Socionics is interpreted. Kindreds share the same Base, Business shares the same Creative, and they do seem alike. To be honest, I don't know how to reconcile this, except for saying that there are multiple levels of similarity you could look at this from. And maybe one is more comprehensive and telling than another.

I used to agree with Model B (which is what you're talking about), until I started thinking more closely about it, and realized there are a lot of things that don't really make sense. Like why, for example, is +Ti always blocked with -Ni in the Conscious Ego, but never -Si? After all, it can be blocked with -Si in the Shadow Ego, why not the conscious one? I've yet to find an explanation for that.

Ti+/Te- = Beta ST, Gamma NT
Ni-/Ne+ = Beta NF, Alpha NT
Si-/Se+ = Beta ST, Alpha SF

The association you provided does not exist, although Si- blocked with Ti+ is Beta ST. Could you reexamine and clarify your position? As it seems there's a misunderstanding somewhere.

The biggest thing for me, however, was realizing that all +/- related phenomenon can be adequately explained by the "classic" Model A, which I talked about in more detail in this thread: Eliminating the Need for Model B?

Basically, my conclusion was that the "sub-elements" are not distinct elements at all, but a single element being used in two different ways, in conjunction with two other elements. +Ti and -Ti are the same element, it's just that Ti+Se works differently from Ti+Ne.

Well, yeah, here it's just a matter of association and semantics. However, reducing the situation to " Ti+Se works differently from Ti+Ne", you leave out all the other types who receive those different flavors of functions. Beta NFs do not have Ti+Se ego, yet we know the appropriate dualizing Ti should come from Ti+Se. More over, Beta NFs could receive this same dualizing Ti from Gamma NTs, yet Gamma NTs do not have Ti+Se ego. This is why fully denoting the Model A(or using Model B) is important.

[Raver]

Which is a superficial reason, that would be by stereotype.

Then what would you deem being an accurate way of determining type that is not superficial by your standards? Anyways, it is possible to type someone accurately for external reasons that aren't superficial.

[Beautiful sky]

Beware of the dreaded 'Null' mistyping, being mistyped as one's own Identical. Of all possible mistypings, this is the most difficult to notice and troubleshoot. Even the most skillful and experienced socionists have fallen for this one. It is the most common of all possible mistypings, as your Identical behaves just like you in every way. Null mistypings can persist for years before they are finally caught and corrected.

Part of this is true, Nicole, however, types can literally "borrow" you and your style, seeming very much like yourself.

[Krig the Viking]

Well, it's not exactly theory but what actually happens. I went through the Typing Spreadsheet Google document, and the most common typings were within the range I described. It's something I've even noticed on the forum, people generally zero in onto those same types. But what you bring up is right, which deals with the way classical Socionics is interpreted. Kindreds share the same Base, Business shares the same Creative, and they do seem alike. To be honest, I don't know how to reconcile this, except for saying that there are multiple levels of similarity you could look at this from. And maybe one is more comprehensive and telling than another.

Fair enough.

Ti+/Te- = Beta ST, Gamma NT
Ni-/Ne+ = Beta NF, Alpha NT
Si-/Se+ = Beta ST, Alpha SF

The association you provided does not exist, although Si- blocked with Ti+ is Beta ST. Could you reexamine and clarify your position? As it seems there's a misunderstanding somewhere.

Wow, that's embarrassing, I managed to royally screw up that example, and I have no idea how.

I was trying to talk about -Te, +Ni, and +Si. LIE has -Te blocked with +Ni in the Conscious Ego, LSI has -Te blocked with +Si in the Shadow Ego, but no type has -Te blocked with +Si in the Conscious Ego. Why not?

Well, yeah, here it's just a matter of association and semantics. However, reducing the situation to " Ti+Se works differently from Ti+Ne", you leave out all the other types who receive those different flavors of functions. Beta NFs do not have Ti+Se ego, yet we know the appropriate dualizing Ti should come from Ti+Se. More over, Beta NFs could receive this same dualizing Ti from Gamma NTs, yet Gamma NTs do not have Ti+Se ego. This is why fully denoting the Model A(or using Model B) is important.

Beta NFs have Ti blocked with Se in their Super-Id (producing, in effect, +Ti and -Se). My theory is that Gamma NTs have Ti in their unvalued Id, but find it more palatable when used in conjunction with their valued Super-Id Se than with their unvalued Id Ne, meaning that they prefer, in effect, +Ti over -Ti. Ultimately, an ILI would prefer to use neither form of Ti, but if necessary, Ti with Se (only one unvalued element) is preferable to Ti with Ne (two unvalued elements).

In my opinion, since both theories explain the data equally, Occam's razor would tend to favour my theory over the one that proposes multiplying the number of IEs by two.

[EyeSeeCold]

Then what would you deem being an accurate way of determining type that is not superficial by your standards? Anyways, it is possible to type someone accurately for external reasons that aren't superficial.

There must be an accurate way of determining type, sure, but that's not really what I was getting at.

I can't read your mind and know what patterns you are processing when you intuit a type, but nonetheless the perceptual intensity of a type is relative to different persons. Type is type, a person is a person. I'm not denying the existence of accurate stereotypes(which are, technically, sensationally-objective identifiers), but merely emphasizing it is not the type you see clearly, but the person's facets and how they suggest, to you, some pre-existing model of being.

A goofy, sexually akward ILE is not an obvious ILE. A money-making LIE is not an obvious LIE. A loner mechanic SLI is not an obvious SLI etc.


Rather, their way of processing has manifested and shaped their lives in a stereotypical manner. Environmental context is a largely overlooked factor.

[EyeSeeCold]

Fair enough.



Wow, that's embarrassing, I managed to royally screw up that example, and I have no idea how.

I was trying to talk about -Te, +Ni, and +Si. LIE has -Te blocked with +Ni in the Conscious Ego, LSI has -Te blocked with +Si in the Shadow Ego, but no type has -Te blocked with +Si in the Conscious Ego. Why not?

Si+/Se- = Alpha SF, Beta ST
Ni+/Ne- = Gamma NT, Delta NF
Te-/Ti+ = Beta ST, Gamma NT

Te- blocked with Si+ is Beta ST Ego. Picture for reference: http://i.imgur.com/eLUZf.jpg

I'm still not sure of the problem here.

Beta NFs have Ti blocked with Se in their Super-Id (producing, in effect, +Ti and -Se). My theory is that Gamma NTs have Ti in their unvalued Id, but find it more palatable when used in conjunction with their valued Super-Id Se than with their unvalued Id Ne, meaning that they prefer, in effect, +Ti over -Ti. Ultimately, an ILI would prefer to use neither form of Ti, but if necessary, Ti with Se (only one unvalued element) is preferable to Ti with Ne (two unvalued elements).

In my opinion, since both theories explain the data equally, Occam's razor would tend to favour my theory over the one that proposes multiplying the number of IEs by two.

I agree with your reasoning. The way you choose to understand and the way it is in Model B/fully Model A is no different, in effect. The factor that puts Model B ahead, in my opinion, is that the way you propose is intuitive and relies on subjective reasoning; a person requires the capability to make those connections, whereas one can simply know the implications of function blocks by looking at the full +/- model with all of the data in view.

Unless there is still a problem with the previous situation of [Te-, Si+], this discussion's theme of topic seems to now be fully a matter of preference.

[Raver]

There must be an accurate way of determining type, sure, but that's not really what I was getting at.

I can't read your mind and know what patterns you are processing when you intuit a type, but nonetheless the perceptual intensity of a type is relative to different persons. Type is type, a person is a person. I'm not denying the existence of accurate stereotypes(which are, technically, sensationally-objective identifiers), but merely emphasizing it is not the type you see clearly, but the person's facets and how they suggest, to you, some pre-existing model of being.

A goofy, sexually akward ILE is not an obvious ILE. A money-making LIE is not an obvious LIE. A loner mechanic SLI is not an obvious SLI etc.


Rather, their way of processing has manifested and shaped their lives in a stereotypical manner. Environmental context is a largely overlooked factor.

I agree, I think it's less what a person does that matters and more how a person acts. For example, you can tell when someone is or ego if you look at how they talk and the kind of mind-frame they have, which is largely a result of in-born personality traits. However, the kind of job they possess and how they behave socially can be more environmentally related.

[Beautiful sky]

The factors that I have observed:

1. Mistaking an mobilizing function for a base function
2. Mistaking a Role function for the base function
3. Mistaking a demonstrating function for a role function
4. Giving way too much credit to the person's creative function
5. Not paying attention to yourself and your criticism of the person; if you're a P type, you criticize the person's doing because you observe happenings; if you're a J type you criticize their ego block functions
6. Not trying to locate their weak functions
7. Mistaking their polr for their DS and vice versa.

[Ver]

The factors that I have observed:

5. Not paying attention to yourself and your criticism of the person; if you're a P type, you criticize the person's doing because you observe happenings; if you're a J type you criticize their ego block functions

Could you elaborate on that Martisa? That sounds interesting.