Personal bias in typing
when you have feelings about a person you are typing that could influence how you type them...
to what degree should this be eliminated and the feelings ignored?
to what degree should this bias be acknowledged and incorporated into how you type them?
do you think that your opinion on this is related to your type - if so, how?
anything else?
For myself,Originally Posted by kassie
The feelings I have about a person are treated as information, just as anything else I perceive/understand about them. The feelings point out things that I should attend to, to aid my further understandings of them.
* What is it I like about them?
* What is it that annoys me about them?
* What is it about them that gets my blood boiling?
* And ultimately, are these things type related or not?
I may not always be aware of my biases, but if I were to ignore the ones that make themselves obvious, then I would lose out on learning (about them, myself, and whatever the situation entails).
It's quite possible that this is related to my type.
I'm comfortable and familiar enough with my emotions, as well as obtaining information from my emotions that it is a second nature to me. The idea of ignoring them, or eliminating them from the equation is akin to the idea of losing sight, or sound.
But if I were a person that was easily confused by my emotions, or easily dismissed them, then I can imagine that I wouldn't consider them to provide important nor substantial enough information to me. And so then, I might not even be aware enough of the emotional bias, or worse, aware that I'm biased, but be unsure how to resolve it.
Please note, that while I might conceive the possibility that logical types might have an easier time dismissing the emotions, it does not mean that I think that logical types don't have/use their emotions.
Nor does it mean that I think that all ethical types analyze their emotions with intent to obtain information from them.
Also, lol, nor does it mean that I don't find myself fighting against the idea of someone I really really can't stand, as being in my quadra, mirror, or identical.
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
lings, nothing but these funny, funny
lings
Zero unless one is stupidly content to hide within a funhouse of masturbatory delusion. Doing so admits nothing of externalities that threaten fantasized immunity to human folly, nor those that introduce the risk of experiencing any but auto-erotic pain. Denying subjectivity grants it a deeper hold in the unconscious, populating the waking mind with caricatures and grotesques that serve the ulterior motives of continued self-seduction.
What the eye beholds it casts in its own light. The diligent analyst not only strives to stand at a remove from personal sentiment toward the analysand but also examines the causal roots of affectivity thereto. Approached with self-effacing candor, resultant insights can account for said reactions and improve their assimilation beside more objective data.to what degree should this bias be acknowledged and incorporated into how you type them?
Last edited by Korpsy Knievel; 01-23-2012 at 05:43 PM.
Keep your bias. It is one piece of data. You'll need more to type someone.
Impossible to ignore or eliminate bias, it's important to identify self-bias and account for it by constantly evaluation.
Assume bias, make predictions, record prediction, evaluate understanding based on accuracy of predictions over time.
Acknowledge that if you're consistently wrong with predictions that there is a error in the understanding.
Assume incomplete information, accuracy in one area of assessment does not suggest accuracy in another area or continued accuracy in that area. Ability to correctly type one sociotype also does not mean ability to type another sociotype.
Socionics requires a non-human mechanism to generate type suggestions, without self-reporting tests or practitioner guided interviews. There are general approaches to this sort of analysis, but no real road at the moment to make predictions and confirm them. One can build a engine to make analysis, but no mechanism to confirm anything.
I wouldn't say the feelings should be ignored altogether, but the nature of those feelings should be understood in the context of what you're talking about. Reactions towards manners of communication, philosophies, styles of cognition etc can be just as important in understanding the types as the philosophies and cognitive styles themselves. The one caveat here would be that what is type-relevant and what is not has to be cognitively understood first so you know how to gauge the subjective reactions in the first place.
how many typings can you have that are "correct" but don't match up in terms of who you like/dislike before socionics becomes pointless?
which is more important - typings that are consistent with theory, or typings that describe relationships in reality? why? (please humor me and choose one and don't say "both/compromise/blah blah")
You can go by 100 million typings a person has produced - doesn't mean they're correct at all. In fact, every single one of them can be completely invalid and something becomes pointless(?) after you realised you can see it through. Whether you have originated it or have accepted somebody else's stance, makes no difference.
Good one.which is more important - typings that are consistent with theory, or typings that describe relationships in reality? why? (please humor me and choose one and don't say "both/compromise/blah blah")
There is no such thing as consistency when it comes to theory. This is absurd. Theory is just theory, it is nothing set in stone. Consistency by definition forces the subject to act in a consistent way. From what I have seen on here, it is the opposite of that.
You alone can verify typings you have made in your life. You alone know whether it works and how comfortable you are with it. Option #2 for me.
If you really like them, and they really like you, then you are obviously duals.
CONFIMED!
Socionics is not a theory of likeability. It's a predictive theory detailing 16 types of interpersonal experiences you can have with people.
Socionics is like a carnival. Which ride do you want to go on?
(you won't necessarily like it)
(i)NTFS
An ILI at rest tends to remain at rest
and an ILI in motion is probably not an ILI
♫ 31.9FM KICE Radio ♫ *56K Warning*
My work on Inert/Contact subtypes
Socionics Visual Identification(V.I.) Database
Socionics Tests Database
Comprehensive List of Socionics Sites
Fidei Defensor
ugh i wish i could talk to people about this seriously without this stupid mocking bullshit. YOU DONT NEED TO LIKE EVERYONE IN YOUR QUADRA DERP *SLOBBER*
esc, if you don't like it, then what is the theory even for in practice? if you don't like most of the people you meet in your quadra i guess you could use socionics as nothing more than something to jerk off your brain with but its completely fucking pointless then. likeability may not be the be-all and end-all but anybody who says it doesn't have anything to do with how they type people loses my respect because they are obviously deluding themselves and are falsely arrogant about their typing abilities. its so annoying how whenever i bring this up i get stupid dogmatic crap about how there are factors other than intertype blah blah, i KNOW that and its an easy way to dismiss the question without thinking about it. also your patronizing tone is just gross because its so undeserved.
I think there's a difference between me liking everyone in my quadra, versus me feeling like I get where they are coming from, and also, if we don't like each other, it's not particularly upsetting to me. Whether I like them or not, I seem to be able to tolerate their particular shit okay.
Re. bias, seems unavoidable. I'll only repeat prior posts by saying that we can try to get better at recognizing our bias etc.
LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”
Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”
LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”
The theory of Socionics is positive(contrast with normative) in that it's only describing what is, not what you should do. Based on what Socionics offers in understanding, you don't have to abide by it, it just a matter of personal choice like any other.
Nobody said it doesn't have anything to do with how people type people. Who are you critiquing?likeability may not be the be-all and end-all but anybody who says it doesn't have anything to do with how they type people loses my respect because they are obviously deluding themselves and are falsely arrogant about their typing abilities.
I responded to the post I quoted, the OP I wasn't addressing.its so annoying how whenever i bring this up i get stupid dogmatic crap about how there are factors other than intertype blah blah, i KNOW that and its an easy way to dismiss the question without thinking about it.
I'm sorry you perceived my post that way but since I didn't do anything intentionally, I have to say you biting back at me is also undeserved.also your patronizing tone is just gross because its so undeserved.
(i)NTFS
An ILI at rest tends to remain at rest
and an ILI in motion is probably not an ILI
♫ 31.9FM KICE Radio ♫ *56K Warning*
My work on Inert/Contact subtypes
Socionics Visual Identification(V.I.) Database
Socionics Tests Database
Comprehensive List of Socionics Sites
Fidei Defensor
I mean, i think that its more than possible to "like" someone from a different quadra and "dislike" someone from your own quadra, just based on tons of NTR factors, maturity level, how psychologically close circumstances force you to be, etc. So just liking or disliking someone isn't enough information to necessarily justify a particular sociotype or quadra. Also keep in mind that half of each quadra is in the same club as half of its opposing quadra. People in the same club have common interests and can find themselves in similar circles with a lot to talk about.
Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx
Also
This only works in theory. It would be okay if you started from a foundation of types that were all assuredly who you typed them as - however that doesn't seem to be the case, in particular with your typing's and those associated with you (galen, polikujm). In talking with you lovely people, what seems to have occurred is the development of a VI bias in where you associate mannerisms with types that those particular traits aren't indicative of. Esentially, what you have done is worked backwards from the outside in which is fundamentally faulty - it is like using stereotypes to type people (oh he's social, must be an extrovert). You have attributed things such as lip biting to VI mannerisms
If anyone doesn't understand the socionix gallery of types, imagine incorporating this sort of methodology into your typings - the results would be alarmingly different and why IMO conclusions arrived by such a proccess should be taken with a grain of salt.
<Crispy> what subt doesnt understand is that a healthy reaction to "FUCK YOU" is
Nope, that's one of the 'reasons' you gave for typing Shannyn Sossamon as SLE in the chatbox. If HK hadn't purged it, I would happily have looked for the quote.
Also, I don't appreciate you attacking my character in a debate about your methods. You resort to ad-hominems way too much for my liking - FYI it doesn't add any credibility to your argument, it only makes you look like a jackass.
Furthermore, if I couldn't recall examples, the use of such arbitrary observations should be evident to anyone taking a glimpse at that gallery - it's been continually criticized for having such glaring differences from what the average user would consider 'normal' typings. I've been to socionix and read the articles you posted up about your typing methods, as well as seen some of the 'rationale' given(a term I use VERY loosely in this regard) by posters in threads who ascribe to those methods - so, I would beg to differ as per being uninformed.
<Crispy> what subt doesnt understand is that a healthy reaction to "FUCK YOU" is
Sryz Ashy, he ryte
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
If I told you that someone who is particularly sociable is extroverted, what possible context could make that correlation even somewhat valid? Sociability is not about extroversion, period. Lip biting has no correlative value to VI. You have stated numerous times that you don't see the point in fleshing out explanations, so what sort of wealth of information do you delusionally believed you bestowed upon me to be misconstrued? You barely said anything about her - the summation can be concluded as 'She reminds me of other SLE's I know'.
As far as your unawareness of being criticized and unorthodox technique - that's a joke right? I have seen you argue against people who criticize your methods a bunch of different times, although there is more than quite a few I am sure you are unaware of. It would be tedious to go through threads to pick examples, if you would like I can start up a thread to substantiate what I have just said w a poll. It would be a rather pointless endeavor, though, I don't see what either of us would gain. I have read techniques on typing, and excerpts of typing interviews from socionists. I can paste the links if you want - but most sources don't rely so heavily on VI as it was meant as a supplemental way of typing as opposed to a primary of sorts. I have seen articles discouraging relying on it, not the other way around. Most people on here and from other forums attempt to understand type from a behavioral point of view, hence 'the norm'. The use of Vi to the point of dismissing behavioral cues of a type is not 'the norm' by that fact- if this isn't the case, then I would like to see where such emphasis on VI is mentioned as being used primarily, and would also like to be pointed to a forum, or website, or anything, where any sort of majority goes about seriously typing in those terms.
As an aside, if I have misrepresented anything, please clarify with specifics. Again, I have no reason to lie or misrepresent. I'm not trying to 'prove' anything - my point in all this was to highlight the bias evident in such an approach (VI).
<Crispy> what subt doesnt understand is that a healthy reaction to "FUCK YOU" is
i have never had trouble with being biased.
You missed the point. I was saying that someone equating sociability to extroversion is the same thing as you equating lip biting as suitable VI information - the context in both cases does not matter because, any way you slice it, sociability is not related to extroversion - and neither is lip biting to VI. No amount of context can make that correlation even somewhat valid, and again, there wasn't even much context to begin with.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/norm
I'm not trying to appeal to a consensus to advance an argument - rather what I'm arguing is that group consensus is the gauge of what a norm is, and what is considered orthodox by definition. Within these parameters there is a mean way of typing that's observable, mainly relying primarily on behavioral characteristics, and semantic clues in order to assess a type. You deviate from that, hence you are not the norm.
I am going to clarify my earlier point - I have never seen you say to dismiss behavioral cues (and I wasn't saying you said that in my earlier post) - however, although you don't advocate this, I have seen you do so in favor of V.I. - for instance, again taking the shannyn sossamon example, people were arguing that her behavior didn't fit the typing you had of her - however, you defaulted back to VI as your main argument. I've seen you do stuff like more than a few times, this is essentially what I was describing above.
<Crispy> what subt doesnt understand is that a healthy reaction to "FUCK YOU" is
Pirate, homi, its not worth it
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
Haha! That's more like it.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
