Can you trust the typings from someone who mistypes oneself?

[The Exception]

I've seen it happen multiple times. Someone posts a bunch of typings for people, is quite confident of these typings. Yet when it comes to typing of themselves, they are clearly mistyped. Upon finding out that the person has been mistyped, do you start to mistrust their typings of others?

[Olly From Wally World]

Shit, you don't even need to be mistyped for me not to trust your typings.

[The Ineffable]

Doesn't affect me in any way. I don't trust or distrust other's typing, I am not using others' statements in making my views, and when some observation of other might be constructive in my goal, I start asking questions. Basically the arguments of someone make the type they're asserting, not their assertion itself.

[ouronis]

Yes. And I doubt every other thing they say, too.

[wacey]

IDK, maybe it's usual to have a self mistyping as well as the ability to look at others objectively? I mean, when a guy reads a novel, or watches a movie, he doesn't need to have experienced what the characters are going through himself to understand their predicament and characterization.

Another way to look at the main question is can you trust the typings of people who ARE self typed correctly? I'm in the camp that not everything people discuss needs to be in relation to themselves. But, we live in an egoic/ facebook era and everyone and everything seems to be about themselves.

[xerx]

You should only ever trust you own logic to begin with.

Someone posts a bunch of typings for people, is quite confident of these typings.

It's even funnier when said person posts just the typing with no explanation, as though that means anything.

[Amber]

I've seen it happen multiple times. Someone posts a bunch of typings for people, is quite confident of these typings. Yet when it comes to typing of themselves, they are clearly mistyped. Upon finding out that the person has been mistyped, do you start to mistrust their typings of others?

Someone can be mis-typed because they don't know themselves well enough. Other times because they would like to be like another type and it's more the idealized image that affects self typing. It's not always a general error in judgement that should apply to all other people. It's mby easier to be more objective about others. Why do you think there are so many polls and typing threads here ?

[Aylen]

I think that people, even if they have mistyped themselves, could still type other people correctly, given they aren't using inter-type relations or how they relate to the other person. Some may have a lack of self-awareness. Although, I think it is entirely possible that some are going to have their own individual perception of socionics, some deviating farther than the generally accepted opinion, possibly birthed from lack of self-awareness, denial, idealization, or taking things different initially. It's apparent in celebrity typing threads, forum members threads, PoLR threads...Most aren't going to hear a song and take the same things from it, even though the words are the same. Something like life experience and culture could make one interpret things differently. Like just thinking of the word cup and picturing a cup in our minds. The cups we see aren't going to be the same, and the memories associated with cups are going to warp whatever objective form of a cup there could be. It's when people shove their typing on others, and are relentless about it, that bothers me. I see it as a form of harassment, trying to tell someone who they are, which I think is completely wrong, (not that a person is a type), and about as annoying as a car salesman trying to sell you a car you don't want, or the feeling from reading about the wesboro church members. I usually accept the typings of others that seem to interpret socionics in a similar way as myself. As for the others, I still consider their typings, but don't take them as seriously, especially if their self-typing deviates far from my perception of what a type is suppose to be like. I honestly don't like typing people and will rarely give my opinion depending on a few factors. Familiarity and annoyance are a few.

I don't even know if any of that makes any sense. Excuse my lack of sleep. lol.

I understood every word. 4w5 ftw.

[Aylen]

Shit, you don't even need to be mistyped for me not to trust your typings.

This is even funnier because of our discussions about this.

[did i mention i love your new avatar?]

[Iris]

I've seen it happen multiple times. Someone posts a bunch of typings for people, is quite confident of these typings. Yet when it comes to typing of themselves, they are clearly mistyped. Upon finding out that the person has been mistyped, do you start to mistrust their typings of others?

I think if someone has mistyped himself, then it is likely that many of his other typings are wrong as well. With misunderstandings about Myers-Briggs vs Socionics, and the proliferation of stereotyped, shallow type descriptions, and the difficulty of understanding the nuances of Socionics theory, it's no wonder there are mistypings.

I take many self-typings with a grain of salt, and rightly so, I think. So many people retype themselves as their self-awareness grows. I mostly try to understand myself through my interactions with others. I form my private impressions of other peoples' types, taking their self-typings into consideration.

[Alomoes]

I've seen it happen multiple times. Someone posts a bunch of typings for people, is quite confident of these typings. Yet when it comes to typing of themselves, they are clearly mistyped. Upon finding out that the person has been mistyped, do you start to mistrust their typings of others?

No. I type that person as the type who doesn't type right and move on. As such, I've established a connection between INFjs and ESTjs typing that way.

[chemical]

Well the thing is I view typing more as a knack for uncovering generalized patterns in a perceptive way than as a matter of strict formula, algorithm, or accuracy. So it would largely not matter what I think about the person's type himself/herself and matter more what kinds of reasoning they provide. It's because I don't tend to view type as an objective thing in entirety, more a certain mental image that objects at most evoke.

[aixelsyd]

I was mistyped for years but it hardly affected how I typed others. After changing my self-typing (lord, that sounds lame, the term, I mean), it didn't change how I typed others except with less than a handful of people who I knew were my identicals. I always have seen people independently of how I see myself, unless I resonate with someone which is typically rare. Some people who aren't mistyped I wouldn't trust their typings too much, especially if someone has a tendency to overanalyze. Some are better at typing others than other people are. Some people have a clearer picture of others than themselves and it goes the other way, too.

Personally, I find it easy to read others but find myself an enigma when it comes to where I fit in personality typology considering I can't observe myself the way I can others as an outsider. In short, it's a fallacy to think being mistyped implies being generally bad at typing others.

[Olly From Wally World]

This is even funnier because of our discussions about this.

[did i mention i love your new avatar?]

I don't remember the convo.

What do you love about the avatar? And here's a clip from the show since I know you haven't seen it.

[uniden]

I think it's more than possible that someone might have a skewed perception of their own type yet still use sound reasoning to type others. I mean, someone might decide they need a typing, uh, readjustment to be a special someone's dual . That has nothing to do with how they would type other people. What first comes to mind, though, is the tendency for people to use different methods for evaluating other people than they do for themselves. Here's a excerpt from a wiki article:

"...when people decide whether someone else is biased, they use overt behaviour. On the other hand, when assessing whether or not they themselves are biased, people look inward, searching their own thoughts and feelings for biased motives."

That's not to say evaluating type is the same as determining bias. But, as we aren't privy to other people's thought processes, we need to use concrete indications that might clue in on their type. Content of posts, how they describe their life experiences, interactions with other forum members, etc etc. While when we are evaluating our own type, we do have that perspective. Then our ability to type ourselves has to do with our own self-awareness. And we'd be subject to all sorts of other things that aren't present when trying to type other people such as wishful thinking. All sorts of reasons why someone's self-typing might be unreliable but they could be fine with typing other people.

[blackburry]

Birdie's post made me realize I have done that at times to a couple of people. sorry.

But yes. I agree with birdie's, unidens, aixelds posts that it depends, and usually the two can be separated.

[ryoka14]

It's a lot harder to see yourself with the same lens you see others. so no they can still observe others accurately just not themselves most likely, it's probably less to do with a misunderstanding of socionics and more to do with a misunderstanding or denial of themselves

[woofwoofl]

All of this depends on how much any given person types based on self-type.

[Aylen]

I don't remember the convo.

What do you love about the avatar? And here's a clip from the show since I know you haven't seen it.

I like the look of skepticism on his face. I will refresh your memory, on trusting others input, on skype.

You told me you trusted mine on certain things before.

Edit: and yes I have trusted yours on some things. You have very good insight on certain subjects.

[Computer Loser]

In general, if you flip flop around I won't trust you period.

[chriscorey]

In general, if you flip flop around I won't trust you period.

[strangeling]

Depends what you mean by 'mistyped' first of all because this isn't an exact science and people have natural variations to their personality that socionics don't seem equipped to deal with. This is mostly considering this forum's long history of theoretical conflict between just about everybody trying to reconcile how they each come to different conclusions for socionics. A lot of times the only thing people seem to agree on is disagreeing, making the idea of 'mistyping' not clearly defined.

That said, you'll have to be more specific before I can answer your question.

[kopyk]

flip-floppers are goddamn asswipes. I bet half of em did it just to troll others & disrupt their sense of socionical-intellectual consistency & integrity. oh well, thats doesntxistionics 4 u

[Olly From Wally World]

Some of this is funny, seeing as how many here don't explain their typings and just look to people they've come to trust for their type opinions, either because they have a website called Socionix with a shit ton of celebrity typings which makes them credible for typing or because they post most of the articles on this forum, in which they may just state a type as is and they're sold because they must know their shit (not that I think Ashy and Silke are full of shit, just saying what some do here).

I don't really care for anyone's type assertions as they will not get registered without an explanation most of the time or without showing some of the parts that went into the whole. Like when anyone just states someone they know is a certain type, it will not register at all or be seriously considered without their reasoning or demonstration showing what went into the process of that typing (like speaking about their functions or whatever). In which case, I may just ask questions, ask why they're that type, etc. That said, for the most part, I can look at anyone's type assertions and can see why they would think the type they chose for someone even if I find it incorrectly stereotypey or whatever. Actually, that's what it seems like most of the time here, as if personas or non-socionics information processing is taken into account when typing someone to the point where it should be obvious to you why someone is this type without an explanation (cuz duh, they are too stronk to not be ego)./rant.

To answer the question though, I think people can not know their own types and still be able to apply it to others. People are aware of their own depths and the way they contradict so that can make it harder to apply to themselves while they can sometimes look at someone else and type them more easily- more like they can type them with more confidence- as they aren't as aware of their depths and contradictions. It's like how we never really see ourselves from the outside without a reflection or video but can see everyone else. And also, like some people here said, depends on what you mean by 'mistyped'.

[wacey]

All of this depends on how much any given person types based on self-type.

True, true, but is that necessarily a bad thing? Even though I argued against doing this previously, I can see the merit of it and will admit have been guilty of doing just that.