Factors Behind Common Mistypings

[Krig the Viking]

I've been observing for a while which kinds of mistypings occur most frequently on this board, as well as what sorts of mistakes I tend to make myself when typing people. I've noticed some common factors that seem to occur frequently in mistypings, for example, types with shared Ego functions are commonly mistaken for one another, as are types with similar function strengths (Quasi-Identicals, etc.). I've compiled a list of the common factors that I've noticed, and given each item points, which reflect my opinion of how frequently such factors are present in mistypings.

1. Shared Ego Function. (4 pts.)

This is the most common factor that I've seen in mistypings. This would mean four points for Kindred and Business types, eight for Mirror.

2. Identical Ego/Id Function Strength. (3 pts.)

This is the second most common factor I've seen. This whole thing started when I noticed how common Benefit types are in mistypings, which I hadn't expected. Three points for Benefit types, six for Quasi-Identical.

3. Close Ego/Id Function Strength. (2 pts.)

Two points for Mirage and Semi-Duality, four for Extinguishment.

4. Shared Vertness. (2 pts.)

Two Introverts are obviously easier to mistake for one another, as are two Extraverts.

5. Shared Rationality. (1 pt.)

This seems to have a slight effect.

6. Shared Ego/Superid Functions. (1 pt.)

I've seen people mistake valued functions for strong functions. It doesn't seem logical that it would happen, but it does.

Adding up the points for each inter-type relation, we get the following theoretical list of common mistypings, from most common to least common:

Points	Name	Frequency
8	Mirror	Very Common
8	Quasi-Identical	Very Common
7	Kindred	Quite Common
7	Look-a-Like	Quite Common
6	Benefit	Common
5	Extinguishment	Kind of Common
4	Activity	Not Very Common
4	Supervision	Not Very Common
4	Semi-Duality	Not Very Common
4	Mirage	Not Very Common
3	Duality	Uncommon
3	Super-Ego	Uncommon
0	Conflict	Extremely Uncommon

Obviously, this is all still highly experimental, so I'll need some more hard data to see if it actually works. But in theory, if you have a range of possible typings that have been suggested for someone, you should be able to figure out which ones are more and less likely based on the above list. For example, if your range of suggested typings includes a Conflict pair, then it's likely that neither one of the Conflict pair is the subject's actual type, since if either one is true, then it means that someone has mistaken that type for its Conflictor, which almost never happens. The suggested types whose relations to the other suggested types are mostly the common mistypings and rarely the uncommon ones are more likely to be the correct typing.

For example, let's say people have typed a given subject as ILE, EIE, SLI, and LII. The relationships involved are:

ILE: Benefit, Semi-Duality, Mirror.
EIE: Benefit, Conflict, Semi-Duality.
SLI: Semi-Duality, Conflict, Benefit.
LII: Mirror, Semi-Duality, Benefit.

In this case, since EIE and SLI conflict with one another, the subject is unlikely to be either. The subject is likely ILE or LII.



Another example: IEI, ESI, ILE, SEI.

IEI: Benefit, Mirage, Look-a-Like.
ESI: Benefit, Conflict, Quasi-Identical.
ILE: Mirage, Conflict, Duality.
SEI: Look-a-Like, Quasi-Identical, Duality.

Since ESI and ILE conflict, neither is likely correct. SEI is Dual with ILE, which is an Uncommon mistyping, so it's more likely the subject is IEI (with Quite Common, Common, and Not Very Common mistypings).



Anyway. It's somewhat complicated, but it makes sense to me. Like I said, it's still pretty theoretical at this point, so it needs to be applied to some actual test cases, to see how it works and if it needs refining, etc. But I'm optimistic that this could be a helpful tool in narrowing down potential types in some cases.

[1981slater]

Excellent.

In my case, it works inasmuch as I have been typed ILE (97%), SLE (1%), IEE (1%) and LIE (1%).

[Creepy-]

Interesting that one has such a high theoretical probability of being mistyped as a Quasi-Identical. Thanks for this information.

[Krig the Viking]

Quasi-Identicals have the exact same strengths and weaknesses, they just value opposite things. Superficially, they can appear very similar, hence the name "Quasi-Identical".

[ThickRichard]

Interesting theory.

[silke]

Nice work. This coincides with what I have observed so far. Only I'd put semi-duality as uncommon. I've participated in probably over a hundred typing threads by now on other forums and really don't remember a single semi-duality mis-typing.

[Jarno]

8 Mirror Very Common

yes my experience too. This is my number one mistake I think.

[golden]

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.

[squark]

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.

If it's true that you're as likely to mistype as your quasi as you are your mirror, and not as likely to mistype as your contrary, you could use that to help determine mirrors. IOW, if deciding between EIE and IEI, you could look at the plausibility of misytping as IEE vs EII. If it's the former, then EIE is more likely, and if it's the latter, then IEI is more likely.

It makes sense, but there might be cases where a contrary typing does seem more likely, such as strong and obvious rationality/irrationality. But, in those cases, you're not going to be looking at your mirror as a choice to begin with.

[Krig the Viking]

If it's true that you're as likely to mistype as your quasi as you are your mirror, and not as likely to mistype as your contrary, you could use that to help determine mirrors. IOW, if deciding between EIE and IEI, you could look at the plausibility of misytping as IEE vs EII. If it's the former, then EIE is more likely, and if it's the latter, then IEI is more likely.

It makes sense, but there might be cases where a contrary typing does seem more likely, such as strong and obvious rationality/irrationality. But, in those cases, you're not going to be looking at your mirror as a choice to begin with.

Yeah, that's another application I was thinking of. You can use this method not just to sort through other people's suggested typings, but also for when you're trying to type someone yourself, and you've come up with a range of typings that you can't decide between.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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...

[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]

I've been observing for a while which kinds of mistypings occur most frequently on this board, as well as what sorts of mistakes I tend to make myself when typing people. I've noticed some common factors that seem to occur frequently in mistypings, for example, types with shared Ego functions are commonly mistaken for one another, as are types with similar function strengths (Quasi-Identicals, etc.). I've compiled a list of the common factors that I've noticed, and given each item points, which reflect my opinion of how frequently such factors are present in mistypings.

1. Shared Ego Function. (4 pts.)

This is the most common factor that I've seen in mistypings. This would mean four points for Kindred and Business types, eight for Mirror.

2. Identical Ego/Id Function Strength. (3 pts.)

This is the second most common factor I've seen. This whole thing started when I noticed how common Benefit types are in mistypings, which I hadn't expected. Three points for Benefit types, six for Quasi-Identical.

3. Close Ego/Id Function Strength. (2 pts.)

Two points for Mirage and Semi-Duality, four for Extinguishment.

4. Shared Vertness. (2 pts.)

Two Introverts are obviously easier to mistake for one another, as are two Extraverts.

5. Shared Rationality. (1 pt.)

This seems to have a slight effect.

6. Shared Ego/Superid Functions. (1 pt.)

I've seen people mistake valued functions for strong functions. It doesn't seem logical that it would happen, but it does.

Adding up the points for each inter-type relation, we get the following theoretical list of common mistypings, from most common to least common:

Wow Krig, thanks for summing this up so well. I've observed a lot of this as well, especially the quasi's, business, mirror, benefit.

The one thing I would add though is when SELF-TYPING, one can confuse oneself with one's dual. Probably because both value the same things and want to see themselves as the other. Onlookers are likely to know the difference.

On a similar note, i've noticed that quasi and benefit mistypings tend to happen by onlookers, whereas the individual (and perhaps their dual) knows the difference.

[redbaron]

I know some people do confuse themselves with their dual but that's not something that would have happened to me in a hundred million years.

[Suz]

I know some people do confuse themselves with their dual but that's not something that would have happened to me in a hundred million years.

I know, i said it CAN happen (and ime somewhat commonly). Not always though.

[redbaron]

I know, i said it CAN happen (and ime somewhat commonly). Not always though.

yeah. I think it's super interesting how it can happen to some and then to others it would never even be a question.

[Krig the Viking]

I've given up trying to come up with a formula for it, because I realized I was basically trying to logically justify my intuitive conclusions, which made it kind of pointless. So taking the above formula as a basic starting point, and modifying it somewhat to bring it in line with my intuitive perception of the frequency of these mistypings, I've arrived at the following list.

In order from most frequent mistyping to least frequent mistyping:

1. Mirror and Quasi-Identity.
2. Benefit, Kindred, and Look-a-Like.
3. Extinguishment.
4. Activity.
5. Super-Ego.
6. Mirage and Semi-Duality.
7. Supervision.
8. Duality.
9. Conflict.

This is what I'm currently using. I generally regard anything at Super-Ego and below to be a fairly unlikely mistyping, with Conflict being almost impossible for anyone with even a basic understanding of socionics and human nature. The top couple of places I consider understandable mistakes even for highly experienced socionists, especially if they're not intimately familiar with the subject being diagnosed.

The results achieved by this method of analysis are not always (or even often) conclusive; I treat it as slightly less reliable than V.I. and online quizzes, to be used in conjunction with an array of other evidence.

[Trevor]

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...SenhseXc#gid=0

TEST YOUR THEORIES!!!

NUMEROUS TYPINGS TO BE DELIGHTED IN!!!

ONLY TODAY IN YOUR TOWN, TOMORROW WE'RE SOMEWHERE ELSE!!!

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.