I need some help. Is it possible to have access at this database: https://www.famo.ru/etalon/? Are there any other socionics celebrities databases around? I need big data.
@Sol, @silke, @Aylen, @Olimpia, @thehotelambush
I need some help. Is it possible to have access at this database: https://www.famo.ru/etalon/? Are there any other socionics celebrities databases around? I need big data.
@Sol, @silke, @Aylen, @Olimpia, @thehotelambush
http://sss.socioland.ruOriginally Posted by ooo
the problems of famouses databases:
1) mostly opinions are not independent. people much copy other opinions, have significant conformism. any noob may create own list by taking "typed by everyone else" and agreeing with any bs he sees. many lists are such, but not created by those who types many people offline and IRL, watches behavior of people for long with knowing their types
2) opinions are based on bad info. such is for any famous human without videos - there is no good nonverbal. also often no good other data too - biographies, interviews etc are much filtered and biased.
"ethalon" list there is made by opinions which match often between typers. but they match much because of conformism as people knew opinions of others before geting own one. conformism is also higher when there is no enough data - like when are typed people who lived in the past. that "ethalon" list have many historical people because of this
I do not recommend you to trust much to famouses lists and especially to historical people in those lists. I suppose >50% of any today famouses' list is wrong.
You can try Sedecology: www.sedecology.com
hmm I just looked through their ILE typings and there are quite a handful of examples that I disagree with. I wonder if there will ever be a consensus on famous types...
I mostly visit Gulenko's gallery of types. I agree with many of his typings:
https://socioniks.net/famouspeople/
I also remember visiting this site occasionally:
http://dm.sakinorva.net/index
cool, I've just created an account. in general, I don't pay much attention to other people's typings. It's better to research the type yourself. I feel like most people don't know enough to type people and it just confuses me when I'm confronted with an opposite opinion. I'm noticing it with this forum right now. there are many paradoxical typings from forum members.
"I feel like most people don't know enough to type people" - yes.
The way to not get confused is to pay attention to people's arguments rather than their conclusions.
yeah it's hard to reach consensus, some socionists I tend to like often have questionable typings too, I guess it depends on what they make out of their functions/descriptions/etc. For example Talanov has a massive databank and I agree with many of his typings, but even his methods are questionable, he created a lot of graphs and tests out of many people so to find patterns like "Delta NFs like bread" or other silly statements of the like, but point is.. who did he test? were they all russian people? russian people live in the past of 50 years in respect to the western world, how can we trust their stereotypes to apply worldwide?.. etc etc. Often though, you'll find diff typings but within a range of slight differences, for example there's who types Schwarzenegger as LSE or SLE, not that much of a difference.. and that's interesting too for the work I intend to do.
There is no good typing match even for special typing IRL interviews. In average, it was <20% in SRT-99 experiment.
The concsensus can be when there will be objecively highly correct typing methods to trust. For famouses or others.
also
There is no good typing data about famouses, in general. Except for VI typing. It's easy to be misleaded.
The typing skills can be very different, so the meaning of match mb very different too between concrete 2 typers.
Typing matches gotten when people knew external opinions beforehand are higher than real would be, due to conformism.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote