Results 1 to 36 of 36

Thread: Project: etalon database COMPLETE!

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Yaaroslav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Kiev UA
    TIM
    INTJ
    Posts
    331
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Smile Project: etalon database COMPLETE!

    Just visit my channel
    http://www.youtube.com/user/Yaaroslav?feature=mhee#p/u
    and search in 4-letters mode: For example "ENFP" - you will
    Lots of socionists telling us that they can identify type without mistake. Many socionists have its own database and consider that their typing is true.

    I tell to anyone: I am not so as most of them. I recognize that I can do mistake. But I also do everything(and also have lots already done!) to minimize it!

    The main difference between of my database and database of other socionists are The highest logical redundancy of proof.

    So why I considered that my database - are etalon?

    I had been completed 2 huge video-analitical projets
    Reinins dichotomies: QuesTIM - DeklaTIM
    http://www.socioforum.su/viewtopic.p...55484#p1055484

    and "Positivists - Negativists"
    http://www.socioforum.su/viewtopic.php?f=588&t=40309


    most of the people, who entered to this base - are the well known socionists with already, and qualitative identified types. They were: Goulenko, Boukalov, Udalova. So that are the best prerequisites for you to trust my research data.

    From all these men you may find the characteristics not only from Jung basis - but also from these experimentally confirmed dychotomies.
    I had also worked to make these dichotomies more contrast as it possible, seeking for new criteria which can increase the skill level anyone to identify them - so I did everything to make these dichotomies sense which can provide probability of true typing the same or better than Jung Basis dichotomies had been already researched

    What does is that mean?
    to simplify the calculations - I will make equal all values of probability of true typing, and set them to the 0,85
    So we have:
    Before
    E N T P
    P = E-I*N-S*T-F*P-J = 0,522

    After
    E N T P Q +
    But remember!
    Only after you provide research about sense of new dichotomies, only after you provide research of contrast of new dichotomies which can provide probability of true typing the same or better than Jung Basis only after that - you can consider that you dichotomies, that you own in practice
    are equal to the Jung dichotomies.
    So. Back to the example:

    E N T P Q +

    Dichotomies E N T - are connected to dichotomies Q +, So 1 time mistake will do not cause the mistake in total type identification
    These variants are 5
    1 time mistake in a P - will cause the result: "Type not identified"

    2 times mistake:
    There are 6C2 = 15 variants of 2 time mistakes
    when a 2 time mistakes happening in Basis 4C2 = 6
    = They will cause total mistake in typing
    when a 2 time mistakes happening: 1 in Basis and 1 in Q or "+" than we will have also a total mistake in typing. These variants are 2*4C1 = 8
    The variant of two time mistake in Q and + will cause result: "Type not identified" These variants: 1


    Other variants will give us results as "mistake" or "Type not identified". There are 6C3 + 6C4 + 6C5 + 6C6 = 42 variants
    To simplify rest logical steps lets consider all these variants as a "mistake"
    So. Lest calculate what do we have
    Probability without mistake: 0,85^6 = 0,37715
    1 mistake: 5*0,85^5*0,1 = 0,22185
    Total probability to of true typing = 0,599
    Not identified:0,85^5*0,1+ 0,85^4*0,1^2 = 0,0495
    mistake = 1 - 0,599 - 0,0495 = 0,3515
    Excluding variants "not identified"

    After
    Total probability of true typing = 0,599/(1 - 0,0495) = 0,63019
    Mistake = 0,36981
    Progress is significant!


    In general, I own 10 dichotomies on the same level of Quality - but that is the question of further works
    Using by calculator Reinin dichotomies which was created by me, calculating the same way - I had been achieved Total probability of true typing about 95%. Practical experiments shown me the same think: usually I'm finding mistake of my typing in every 20th cases.
    Also: if you want a calculator - I will send you.
    It calls: Calc2008.txt
    DO YOU CONSIDER: YOU CAN NOT MISTAKE?
    (You words - doesn't matter. The matter is - your deeds)
    Anyone who would dare argue with me should be able to pass the test on the basis of Socionics. Otherwise, he will be recognized as a boor.
    Remember: NO CONVERGENCE - NO SCIENCE!

  2. #2
    Fuck-up NewBorn STAR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    TIM
    me>> Augusta whore
    Posts
    998
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yaaroslav View Post
    Just visit my channel
    http://www.youtube.com/user/Yaaroslav?feature=mhee#p/u
    and search in 4-letters mode: For example "ENFP" - you will
    Lots of socionists telling us that they can identify type without mistake. Many socionists have its own database and consider that their typing is true.

    I tell to anyone: I am not so as most of them. I recognize that I can do mistake. But I also do everything(and also have lots already done!) to minimize it!

    The main difference between of my database and database of other socionists are The highest logical redundancy of proof.

    So why I considered that my database - are etalon?

    I had been completed 2 huge video-analitical projets
    Reinins dichotomies: QuesTIM - DeklaTIM
    http://www.socioforum.su/viewtopic.p...55484#p1055484

    and "Positivists - Negativists"
    http://www.socioforum.su/viewtopic.php?f=588&t=40309


    most of the people, who entered to this base - are the well known socionists with already, and qualitative identified types. They were: Goulenko, Boukalov, Udalova. So that are the best prerequisites for you to trust my research data.

    From all these men you may find the characteristics not only from Jung basis - but also from these experimentally confirmed dychotomies.
    I had also worked to make these dichotomies more contrast as it possible, seeking for new criteria which can increase the skill level anyone to identify them - so I did everything to make these dichotomies sense which can provide probability of true typing the same or better than Jung Basis dichotomies had been already researched

    What does is that mean?
    to simplify the calculations - I will make equal all values of probability of true typing, and set them to the 0,85
    So we have:
    Before
    E N T P
    P = E-I*N-S*T-F*P-J = 0,522

    After
    E N T P Q +
    But remember!
    Only after you provide research about sense of new dichotomies, only after you provide research of contrast of new dichotomies which can provide probability of true typing the same or better than Jung Basis only after that - you can consider that you dichotomies, that you own in practice
    are equal to the Jung dichotomies.
    So. Back to the example:

    E N T P Q +

    Dichotomies E N T - are connected to dichotomies Q +, So 1 time mistake will do not cause the mistake in total type identification
    These variants are 5
    1 time mistake in a P - will cause the result: "Type not identified"

    2 times mistake:
    There are 6C2 = 15 variants of 2 time mistakes
    when a 2 time mistakes happening in Basis 4C2 = 6
    = They will cause total mistake in typing
    when a 2 time mistakes happening: 1 in Basis and 1 in Q or "+" than we will have also a total mistake in typing. These variants are 2*4C1 = 8
    The variant of two time mistake in Q and + will cause result: "Type not identified" These variants: 1


    Other variants will give us results as "mistake" or "Type not identified". There are 6C3 + 6C4 + 6C5 + 6C6 = 42 variants
    To simplify rest logical steps lets consider all these variants as a "mistake"
    So. Lest calculate what do we have
    Probability without mistake: 0,85^6 = 0,37715
    1 mistake: 5*0,85^5*0,1 = 0,22185
    Total probability to of true typing = 0,599
    Not identified:0,85^5*0,1+ 0,85^4*0,1^2 = 0,0495
    mistake = 1 - 0,599 - 0,0495 = 0,3515
    Excluding variants "not identified"

    After
    Total probability of true typing = 0,599/(1 - 0,0495) = 0,63019
    Mistake = 0,36981
    Progress is significant!


    In general, I own 10 dichotomies on the same level of Quality - but that is the question of further works
    Using by calculator Reinin dichotomies which was created by me, calculating the same way - I had been achieved Total probability of true typing about 95%. Practical experiments shown me the same think: usually I'm finding mistake of my typing in every 20th cases.
    Also: if you want a calculator - I will send you.
    It calls: Calc2008.txt


    People should pay attention to him

  3. #3
    EffyCold The Ineffable's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Wallachia
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    2,191
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Hmm I don't see any reference to the premises of such calculations. Namely the correct interpretation of the empirical data in order to call these typings correct. From what I know, the Reinin dichotomies alone have varied (and contrasting) interpretations, which of them were experimentally confirmed and by who?

    I also don't get it why is it necessary to take the typings of several socionists as a reference, instead of arbitrary personalities for good reasons. IIRC there is no consensus on the type of many Socionists (even Aushra's type was disputed), I detect a huge leap of faith necessary in order to take them as sufficient prequisites. Unless I'm missing something, what you're asking for is along the lines of "let's assume that the self-typings of these socionists are correct and start off them". Apparently the fame in the field of these subjects is the base justification for this idea, on the other hand their other typings are dismissed. The cherry-picking fallacy.

    Going further, even if we assume these typings are absolutely true, where's the justification that *the other types* in the database are correct? They are made by you. There are a lot of people who agree on the self-typings of socionists but they still disagree with each other in typing third parties - in fact I think this is the most common case.
    Shock intuition, diamond logic.
     

    The16types.info Scientific Model

  4. #4
    Yaaroslav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Kiev UA
    TIM
    INTJ
    Posts
    331
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Ineffable View Post
    Hmm I don't see any reference to the premises of such calculations. Namely the correct interpretation of the empirical data in order to call these typings correct. From what I know, the Reinin dichotomies alone have varied (and contrasting) interpretations, which of them were experimentally confirmed and by who?
    It's a very long question. I can tell you about of real problems of the Reinin dychotomies. About experiments of lots of the socionists such as: Talanov, Mironov, Aushra, Me(Yaroslav Polozov) with Boukalov. And the real achievements.
    Which way you are interested?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Ineffable View Post
    I also don't get it why is it necessary to take the typings of several socionists as a reference, instead of arbitrary personalities for good reasons.
    You are not in the position to consider these cases are "equal" "=". They are not equal. "<>"
    - And that is your fatal mistake in your arguments.
    I know that the not all of the main socionists have been true identified their socionic types. But the probability of mistake from arbitrary personalities - are higher, because of their much more lower level of socionic knowledge, theoretical and practical achievement...

    Quote Originally Posted by The Ineffable View Post

    IIRC there is no consensus on the type of many Socionists (even Aushra's type was disputed), I detect a huge leap of faith necessary in order to take them as sufficient prequisites. Unless I'm missing something, what you're asking for is along the lines of "let's assume that the self-typings of these socionists are correct and start off them". Apparently the fame in the field of these subjects is the base justification for this idea, on the other hand their other typings are dismissed. The cherry-picking fallacy.
    I know that there are many factors which are distorting the accuracy of typing, and this including, but reached a logical redundancy allowed the chance neutralize error.
    About of socionists: I had chosen only their, who types was confirmed by my methods. Also These socionists were a minimal doubt from others about of their types. That means that you have to trust me.


    Quote Originally Posted by The Ineffable View Post
    Going further, even if we assume these typings are absolutely true, where's the justification that *the other types* in the database are correct? They are made by you. There are a lot of people who agree on the self-typings of socionists but they still disagree with each other in typing third parties - in fact I think this is the most common case.
    My work of them - is a short cutted video about them to show all of you that these dichotomies (Q-D, + -) are exists, but I also have a long video where you may sure that all of these men - the rest of my database - are typed true.
    DO YOU CONSIDER: YOU CAN NOT MISTAKE?
    (You words - doesn't matter. The matter is - your deeds)
    Anyone who would dare argue with me should be able to pass the test on the basis of Socionics. Otherwise, he will be recognized as a boor.
    Remember: NO CONVERGENCE - NO SCIENCE!

  5. #5
    Yaaroslav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Kiev UA
    TIM
    INTJ
    Posts
    331
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Exclamation

    It was passed more than one week. But "The Ineffable" is still being silent. It makes me annoyed!!! I had spend lots of efforts for him. And nothing! Nothing! Nothing!!!
    DO YOU CONSIDER: YOU CAN NOT MISTAKE?
    (You words - doesn't matter. The matter is - your deeds)
    Anyone who would dare argue with me should be able to pass the test on the basis of Socionics. Otherwise, he will be recognized as a boor.
    Remember: NO CONVERGENCE - NO SCIENCE!

  6. #6
    Wavebury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    knowhere
    TIM
    LSI-C
    Posts
    5,787
    Mentioned
    223 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    It annoys me when others dont respond to me also, especially if I feel your giving them your energy.

    I dont get however your capitaliztion of the fourth letter in your spelling out of the types. For instance you write "ENFP" instead of the correct socionics writing "ENFp". Why?
    Thunderbolt
    is the future

Posting Permissions

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