Everytime you say XYZ type, or UVW type, you're going back to Ex. Two varied people can self-type as the same type, and both be correct, because they are telling you their view of themselves in relation to their world, and "world" is a different size and scope of application as varied as any individual in the world.
In relation to the forums, the TIM's on here would be very varied. However, in relation to general society, most people on here meet the qualifications for SLE. Lack of normative relationships, rejection of normative relationships, stress at being confronted with lack of normative relationships, formation into a group based upon numbers to have the aforementioned relationships, utilization of situationally altering logic in place of situationally altering normal relationships, over-confidence of intuitive capabilities while missing the big picture, necessity to be the initiator of positive emotional atmospheres, poor to no distinction between external displays of ethics and internal comparative ethics, poor forecasting of the outcome and unconscious desire for someone to do it for them, etc. What is missing from the counter-premise is that they ignore the norms of relationships of society, and that they equate their extroversion/introversion to themselves while ignoring the norms of society; i.e., they ignore that their 1D Fi is the progenitor of all subsequent actions and understandings.There are a few on here, which see all of this as completely obvious, and they generally are speaking a different language than the rest.
The core is modeling of an individual's information metabolism from a single viewpoint. No matter how much you study it, it will still ultimately be your experience of others. Also, information metabolism isn't real; it's a theory. You'd be better served reading on neurobiology.Also, a sidenote on modelling personalities: Although there is a large part of Socionics attempting to model personalities or even going towards a theory of "social progress", the core of Socionics is modeling of an individual's information metabolism.
To know the self, you have to see from outside the self. You can't know someone's personality without knowing the people in their lives, their own impressions of themselves, as well as their impressions on the person in question and yourself.Personality models are a side-effect of this, which vary to a great degree, depending on your source.Socionics don't explain everything, but it's a good step on the way to self-discovery. (As much as I have tried, I have yet to find a psychological model that accounts for all aspects of personality)
Typing someone is just your relationship to them.Indeed, relationships do involve more than one person. This is why I didn't talk about relationships between people at all, in my post. What I talked about was my experience, which is - and forever will be - subjective. Anyhow, that point is passed already.
1) How you see someoneGetting back on topic:
Cool theory, bro.
So let's put it to the test.
Can you provide two practical examples - as in, applicable and verifiable in real life - of:
a) A 1D experience of a relationship
b) A 3D (or 4D) experience of a relationship
2) How that person sees themselves and in relation to how others see them
3) 2 altered to the specific situation in question
4) Keep doing it
All of Socionics is relationships. You, and others on here could have an epiphany and all come to consensus on correct typing; however, at the end of the day, you will still be giving your placement of others into TIM's in relation to yourself. If you present it to someone else, who has not had this epiphany, and ask them to type themselves and you, it most likely won't be the same. At this point, you're faced with the option of disregarding their views or attempting to make yours their own, both of which are 1D. The third option is to keep both sets of views in tact, and comparing the two, while disregarding the system as capable of ever being real, outside of a comparative analysis tool.
Not as specifically designed, because it is designed with the mindset that a "correct answer" exists, even within just the scope of it being a model based upon objective data, as human beings still process everything in the world on a subjective basis. The only application it has is as a tool to flesh out other people's viewpoints on matters, without any viewpoint being "correct," and people have been using far simpler and far more effective techniques for ages in counseling and psychology. Counselors offer viewpoints, under the premise that it is their viewpoint compared to the counselee's, for the counselee's consideration in relation to their own viewpoint(s). They don't say, "no, you're wrong, and this is who/what you actually are," but rather provide the counselee with the opportunity for normative dimension.This way, we can discern the difference and validate if there is an application to the theory.
Only practical application of Socionics outside of the self's self-analysis for thought cohesion: From Ex, to Nm, to St