Results 1 to 40 of 40

Thread: Estimate your Typing Ability

  1. #1
    Landlord of The Dog and Duck Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    Enlightened
    Posts
    16,773
    Mentioned
    336 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default Estimate your Typing Ability

    If the most frequent type in the general population makes up 13% of the total, the baseline for your "ability" to type others would be 13%, because you could just type everyone as being of the most frequent type.

    A past analysis of the forum population's self-types showed that 15.0% of those who indicated a type considered themselves to be IEI.

    If I remember the analysis I once did of the level of correspondence between an individual's declared self-type and their result on the test that I compiled (of which there have been three editions, with one in existence), it was about 40-50%.

    Doing the analysis again but based on what I considered the actual type of each test-taker (if I had an opinion, and done independently of test results), I seem to recall it was more like 60-65% for the second edition, and perhaps lower for the other editions. This was based on a small sample, selectively emphasizes one edition over the others, assumes that test-takers were "accurate" (whatever that means) in their answers, that I had a better understanding of the personality of the test-takers than they did themselves, and so on: this paragraph is not meant to be taken seriously, but merely to illustrate a "best possible" scenario.

    Based on these considerations and on my years of observation which has seen people being absolutely certain of their own types and the types of others, and having utter faith in their own typing ability, my position is that the best method of typing consistently is with a good test, and that in general, typing ability is unlikely to exceed 40-50%. (There is obviously a slight absurdity in testing validity by something which is not fixed...). A more reliable and more heavily researched personality system, such as the Big Five (or perhaps, exclusively the Big Five) may be able to achieve better results than that, and with greater meaning.

    If this is true, then this may mean that when typing (namely, choosing one of the 16 types), in general, more likely than not, you are incorrect, and with no real way of finding out! It may mean that when typing others, especially individuals you do not know or are not especially familiar with, you have even less confidence. (To be fair, you'd expect it to be more difficult to correctly determining one of 16 types rather than one of eight, four, two etc. - more difficult than telling if someone is either highly Agreeable, lowly Agreeable, or Not Readily Determinable: perhaps being able to determine what general flavour a person is can be of great utility, without needing to be precise).

    ...So, what do you estimate your Typing Ability as, taking into account past experience and perhaps also the Spheres in which you are typing (e.g. people you know, people online, people you don't know...and famous people you don't know)?

  2. #2
    Haikus niffer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    TIM
    SLE-H 8w9 SX
    Posts
    2,815
    Mentioned
    279 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    It is pointless to throw around numbers and %'s if there is no clear connection to why those statistics are relevant in any way.

    For example the only way that "baseline ability" idea would work is if people did indeed type everyone as the most frequent type, which you don't know whether or not it necessarily happens.

    I would guess my typing ability, even though you have not given a scale for how to measure that, is around 80% for accuracy all things being considered.

  3. #3

  4. #4
    Haikus niffer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    TIM
    SLE-H 8w9 SX
    Posts
    2,815
    Mentioned
    279 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    I made the assumption that in general, people understand themselves better than another person does.
    That's a correct assumption to make I think.

  5. #5
    summerprincess's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    US
    TIM
    IEI 4w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    556
    Mentioned
    45 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Bad

  6. #6
    Poster Nutbag The Exception's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    my own personal bubble
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    4,104
    Mentioned
    99 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Maybe about 30-40% accuracy. I don't really know. I'm not the best at typing others but I'm not the worst either.

    What I often find is sometimes the quadra will be clear or a couple of dichotomies are clear but the rest is guesswork and remains unsure unless I extensively study someone. Usually I don't want to put in quite that much effort.
    LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP



  7. #7
    mclane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    TIM
    LIE-Ni
    Posts
    911
    Mentioned
    43 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    I made the assumption that in general, people understand themselves better than another person does.
    Not necessarily. Some people have better self-awareness and intrapersonal skills than others. If everyone was as adept at understanding themselves as you say, the psychological profession would not exist.
    Heart > Head > Gut >
    Soul
    LIE-Ni (mongoose-unicorn-leopard-eagle mix)) EII-Fi (dolphin) SEE-Se (dragon) ILI-Te (phoenix)
    4w3 (swan) 5w6 (owl) 8w9 (bear) 9w1 (griffin)
    sx/sp (tiger) sp/so (dolphin) sx/sp (tiger) so/sp (dog)
    Neutral Good True Neutral Chaotic Evil Pure Chaotic
    ELVF VLEF VFLE FVLE
    INFP. INTJ ENTP ISTP
    C N H D

  8. #8
    Stellafera's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    Southern USA
    TIM
    IEI-Fe
    Posts
    458
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Terrible in socionics because I still have trouble conceptualizing types outside of my quadra, decent in enneagram (my conclusions seem to elicit agreement more often than not from the person involved).
    Phobic So/Sp 6w7 3w2 9w1
    Bit of a comic books nerd, bit of a fashion nerd, a lot of a generalized nerd

  9. #9
    Breaking stereotypes Suz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    On a chatbox diet
    TIM
    ESI maybe
    Posts
    6,484
    Mentioned
    173 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'll say 0%
    Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx

  10. #10
    Slade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    138
    Mentioned
    31 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Andreas View Post

    Why I got so low accuracy? Because I assume that every type shouldn't being limited by some traits, stereotypes, or pattern.
    For example, in a smaller scope of sample picking, I might got higher accuracy of typing because the environment of sample is having high diversity.
    But when I picked another bigger sample amount, in a lower diversity environment, it will might so difficult to make an accurate typing. It will become much more lower if that sample is biased in one or two neighbor quadra(s).

    So, if people can have accuracy more than 62% in basic typing and 52% in advanced typing (with subtypes), it might be an extraordinary abilities, or it might be because of smaller sample scope with high diversity environment.
    I think that this a great attitude for typing, and should lead to more accurate typings in the long run.
    Hey, feel free to PM me with any opinions about my type

  11. #11
    squark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    TIM
    1sx
    Posts
    2,591
    Mentioned
    257 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    ...So, what do you estimate your Typing Ability as, taking into account past experience and perhaps also the Spheres in which you are typing (e.g. people you know, people online, people you don't know...and famous people you don't know)?
    Hm. With online people I'll give a few of my thoughts, ideas, and some suggestions of types for them to consider, and then move on. Even if I'm sure I know what type they are, I'm really not interested in debating it with the person, because it really doesn't matter if they type themselves something else.

    For regular in real life people and famous folk there's no good measure of accuracy of typing - I just consider what makes the most sense overall and fits the best, and if I see something that seems out of place, I reevaluate. So considering that it's sort of an ongoing process the idea of percent accuracy doesn't apply in any meaningful way. I mean you have tentative typings, more solid typings, and those where there's very little doubt what they are, but all of that can change. It probably doesn't look like typing at all to the outside observer in a lot of cases especially since I'm aiming for refining my understanding of them rather than a strict and unmoving categorization.

  12. #12
    Haikus Delilah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    TIM
    EII
    Posts
    1,490
    Mentioned
    93 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'm certain of my type, also confirmed by the test on Ganin's site even if I don't care much for it; As for others i'm confident in some Reinen dichotomies; I've found it's more important for me to just draw a rough Te/Fi - Ti/Fe for most cases and leave it at that.

  13. #13
    Landlord of The Dog and Duck Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    Enlightened
    Posts
    16,773
    Mentioned
    336 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    I've read a study about "experts" predicting whether the stock market would go up or down over a certain time period. The experts on the whole only has an accuracy of 47%: if they had tossed a coin to determine their prediction, they would have done better.

    This example is not comparable for various reasons, e.g. they were speculating on what may be, rather than evaluating something in the tangible present. There may also be especially strong reasons for the experts to be over-cautious and over-confident, and a sample of self-professed experts may not be representative of skill (Studies have shown that those who are more confident of being right are more likely to be wrong than those who are more cautious).

    I don't mean to advocate the view that there is no such thing as skill or that the "wisdom of crowds" (an averaging of non-experts) is superior: it will likely vary between fields. But that does of course mean that on average, third-person typing may even do worse than 13%.

    I believe the Big Five (and derivatives) is essentially most well-defined personality system, and one that rates highly in terms of both self-assessment and peer-assessment. One study I found (Validation of the Five-Factor Model of Personality Across Instruments and Observers by Robert R. McCrae and Paul T. Costa, Jr.) has the highest degree of correspondence between self-assessment and peer-assessment on the factor of Openness, with a correlation 0.57. I don't know if that is the same as saying that there is a 57% level of correspondence between raw scores - it certainly isn't a measure of correlation between determining whether an individual is "high" or "low" on a value, as Socionics in effect does when stating things in terms of dichotomies. It is possible for one person to consider themselves as being 100 on a value, and for a peer to consider them as being above average on that value, with a score of 51 (an extreme example): I don't think it would be correct to say that typing someone the same way ("high" or "low" on four factors would be equivalent to a likelihood of 0.57*10^4 (in actual fact, Extraversion had a correlation of 0.47, Conscientiousness 0.43, and Agreeableness 0.30).

    However, if you believe that you can accurately determine if someone is more of an Extravert than an Introvert etc. 80% of the time, then on four dichotomies, you would expect to be correct on all four of them about 41% of the time. Of course, you may believe in typing individuals via which of the eight Information Elements they have in their Ego block: a comparable example would be believing you could get a person's base function correct about 51% of the time, and their creative function right about 80% of the time (after determining the base function).

  14. #14
    ajsindri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    TIM
    IEI
    Posts
    511
    Mentioned
    70 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think I am very accurate for people I know very well but not good when it comes to public figures, or even say my teachers, because all I can see is their personas. It can take me weeks to months or even years to type people. I still don't know the types of half of my friends, a few of which I've known for a long time.

    What is important to me is to always know how confident I feel. I have never changed my mind on anyone once I feel I really know, but for every person whose type I know, there are 3 other people that are only in the hypothesis stage and more the I have not even considered.

    Now if I HAD to type people, like if I was a consultant, I don't think I'd be very good. I completely disregard behavioral trends, and I type people by passively paying attention to their actions. If I was a therapist, I bet I could identify my clients types over time, but definitely not after only a few sessions.

    I have a group of alpha friends and have tried to get me to type people they are interested in before they start a relationship but I can't do it.

  15. #15
    meme hotline Chae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    TIM
    ethic 3
    Posts
    9,084
    Mentioned
    711 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'm better at enneagram (somewhere around 70%) since it observes motivations, which is ethical information. Socionics is more on the side, that's why I'm at 35-40% when you take collective consensus as the benchmark. The benchmark question itself is problematic to me, I don't know what to measure my skill against.

  16. #16

    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    TIM
    IEI-Fe 694 so/sx
    Posts
    1,090
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sindri View Post
    What is important to me is to always know how confident I feel. I have never changed my mind on anyone once I feel I really know, but for every person whose type I know, there are 3 other people that are only in the hypothesis stage and more the I have not even considered.
    same .. once i've settled on a type for someone, i'm pretty confident on that typing, but i'm inconsistent in so far, that most people remain in the "hypothesis stage" where i can't come up with one single type at all.

    at the moment, i'm satisfied with my socionics and instinctual variants typings (though, subtypes and nuances is still something i'm struggling with). especially with people i know in real life. and i'm still very bad at enneagram.

  17. #17
    Raver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    TIM
    Ne-IEE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    4,938
    Mentioned
    220 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    I don't know the percentage of my accuracy in typing, but I believe my typing ability to be average/mediocre. I usually trust people's self-typings generally speaking. There are a minority of individuals in this forum that I will not name that exhibit the dunning kruger effect:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect
    “We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch

    Ne-IEE
    6w7 sp/sx
    6w7-9w1-4w5

  18. #18

  19. #19
    Bento's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    281
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    There wouldn't be much difference between me and a chimpanzee randomly pushing buttons. But at least I try to be correct and the chimpanzee doesn't. That's all that matters /jk

  20. #20
    Tommy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    TIM
    ISTp-0 D sx/sp
    Posts
    2,936
    Mentioned
    339 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    99.99999999999999999999999999999%

  21. #21
    roger557's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    TIM
    LIE-Ni
    Posts
    230
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Not sure one is capacitated to judge that.

  22. #22
    khcs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    1,663
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The typing ability is beyond measure.


  23. #23
    Alonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    873
    Mentioned
    122 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Most assuredly better than @Sol. Even my decomposing cat has a more nuanced understanding of the information elements.

  24. #24
    ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    the bootie
    Posts
    3,841
    Mentioned
    266 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'm gonna brag: the celebs on which I have a strong opinion tended to align with the typings of the socionics experts (Mussolini, Peterson, Merkel, Musk, Berlusconi, Schwarzenegger.. of the last 2 I guessed their base function well, and they're extroverted subtype), for the ones over which there's little consensus, I aligned well in there too (Rowling, Prince Henry + Markle)... aha

    these are the ones I'm remembering, and I'm still a n00b compared to the experts around

    ps, I'm not sure I've typed people in here correctly, but I'm glad if I did

  25. #25
    Dauphin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    North Carolina
    TIM
    EIE
    Posts
    947
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    eh

    Quote Originally Posted by Alonzo View Post
    Most assuredly better than @Sol. Even my decomposing cat has a more nuanced understanding of the information elements.
    Russians just have a weird tendency to find divergent views on almost anything. I'm pretty sure Putin has been given almost every type by the Russian socionics community.

  26. #26
    ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    the bootie
    Posts
    3,841
    Mentioned
    266 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Carolus View Post
    eh



    Russians just have a weird tendency to find divergent views on almost anything. I'm pretty sure Putin has been given almost every type by the Russian socionics community.
    he's very much agreed on (LSI)

  27. #27
    aster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    851
    Mentioned
    325 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Math and I don’t get along.

    I can’t think of anyone’s type I’m certain of. It seems crazy to me to be certain of a type and I don’t trust people who are certain of a type.

    I don’t feel I can answer this question. I take everything I’ve read and try to apply but I’m always opened to the possibility of having a wrong interpretation if there is indeed a right one.

    I’m throwing out 20% because it sounds nice. It’s a guesstimation, if I must.
    Tumblr

    “Sweatpants are a sign of defeat. You lost control of your life so you bought some sweatpants.”
    ~Karl Lagerfeld

  28. #28
    ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    the bootie
    Posts
    3,841
    Mentioned
    266 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    yeah it's very sad but at theend of the day all typology is about consensus... so much for the intro functions : (

  29. #29
    Adam Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    TIM
    ENTJ-1Te 8w7 sx/so
    Posts
    7,656
    Mentioned
    854 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ooo View Post
    yeah it's very sad but at theend of the day all typology is about consensus... so much for the intro functions : (
    I disagree that all typology is about consensus. Some of it is, due to poor definitions and the variable nature of humans, but I believe that quite a bit of it has real-world predictive power.

  30. #30
    ouronis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    TIM
    ref to ptr to self
    Posts
    1,598
    Mentioned
    71 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Being that typing is a projection-riddled mess on top of an incoherent theory, I'd say I'm quite good.

  31. #31
    ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    the bootie
    Posts
    3,841
    Mentioned
    266 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Strange View Post
    I disagree that all typology is about consensus. Some of it is, due to poor definitions and the variable nature of humans, but I believe that quite a bit of it has real-world predictive power.
    predictive power.. yes, but we need some objectivity to make that prediction. I prefer to know that what I think is confirmed by who's more experienced in a subject I can't fully grasp. I base my observations on experience yes, but those too, in socionics context, rely on something I didn't come up with myself, so, somehow, I'm subdued to those rulese.. and again, experts should supposedly know better.

    side note, yes, there's a lot of debate between socionists too, regarding all kind of things, ok.. I myself think some things should just be erased, for simplicity + accuracy sake, but yet, it's uncommon, although it happens, to see a famous person beying typed in extreme opposites.. usually the alternatives are within the same elements, whichis just a sign that there's something "objective" out there..

  32. #32
    Number 9 large's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Baking bread
    TIM
    ESTp 7w8 Aries Sp/Sx
    Posts
    3,732
    Mentioned
    224 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ouronis View Post
    Being that typing is a projection-riddled mess on top of an incoherent theory, I'd say I'm quite good.
    How is it incoherent

  33. #33
    ouronis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    TIM
    ref to ptr to self
    Posts
    1,598
    Mentioned
    71 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Number 9 large View Post
    How is it incoherent
    Many ways I don't particularly feel like listing out at the moment.

  34. #34
    Number 9 large's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Baking bread
    TIM
    ESTp 7w8 Aries Sp/Sx
    Posts
    3,732
    Mentioned
    224 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ouronis View Post
    Many ways I don't particularly feel like listing out at the moment.
    Aka ur just tryna sound cool without an actual argument. Classic

  35. #35
    ouronis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    TIM
    ref to ptr to self
    Posts
    1,598
    Mentioned
    71 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Number 9 large View Post
    Aka ur just tryna sound cool without an actual argument. Classic
    I'm as cool and classic as a glass of Coca Cola

  36. #36
    Number 9 large's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Baking bread
    TIM
    ESTp 7w8 Aries Sp/Sx
    Posts
    3,732
    Mentioned
    224 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ouronis View Post
    I'm as cool and classic as a glass of Coca Cola
    Totally

  37. #37
    Alomoes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    TIM
    LIE ENTj
    Posts
    481
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'm a cheater cause I took the test about a week ago. ~38 WPM about 95% correct. think I can get that up to 40 wpm if I'm dictating the statements.

    That's what I get for doing this on mobile and not getting the context.

    My typing ability I'd say is utter garbage. I make good tests though, and thus, can do it through very mechanicalistic tests and questioning. Do you blah. If you do then blah.

    If I didn't create or know any good frameworks to test from, I'd probably fall back on personal experience and trying to connect personal annecdotes to the information given.

    I also used to lean heavily on gamma for type. That was back when I typed myself as INTp though, so obviously, I was biased.

    Oh, and Schwartzenager is LSE right? He's traditionally typed INTJ in the other one. However, knowing that LSE is very very macho in comparison... Yeah...
    Last edited by Alomoes; 05-11-2019 at 10:24 PM. Reason: I'm an idiot. Wrong type of typing.
    Figured it out. LIE. I'm extraverted, which is incredibly counter intuitive for a person who doesn't tend to go out much. Don't know how often I'll be on, but don't expect me to respond often. Only option I'm willing to debate is Si vs Ni right now. Mission accomplished.

  38. #38
    ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    the bootie
    Posts
    3,841
    Mentioned
    266 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Schwarzy is typed LSE/SLE

  39. #39
    Alomoes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    TIM
    LIE ENTj
    Posts
    481
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Nice. I can logic. Read the LSE vs LIE thread, and Schwartzenager is LSE. That's litterally it.
    Figured it out. LIE. I'm extraverted, which is incredibly counter intuitive for a person who doesn't tend to go out much. Don't know how often I'll be on, but don't expect me to respond often. Only option I'm willing to debate is Si vs Ni right now. Mission accomplished.

  40. #40
    Landlord of The Dog and Duck Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    Enlightened
    Posts
    16,773
    Mentioned
    336 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    I've read a study about "experts" predicting whether the stock market would go up or down over a certain time period. The experts on the whole only has an accuracy of 47%: if they had tossed a coin to determine their prediction, they would have done better.

    This example is not comparable for various reasons, e.g. they were speculating on what may be, rather than evaluating something in the tangible present. There may also be especially strong reasons for the experts to be over-cautious and over-confident, and a sample of self-professed experts may not be representative of skill (Studies have shown that those who are more confident of being right are more likely to be wrong than those who are more cautious).

    I don't mean to advocate the view that there is no such thing as skill or that the "wisdom of crowds" (an averaging of non-experts) is superior: it will likely vary between fields. But that does of course mean that on average, third-person typing may even do worse than 13%.

    I believe the Big Five (and derivatives) is essentially most well-defined personality system, and one that rates highly in terms of both self-assessment and peer-assessment. One study I found (Validation of the Five-Factor Model of Personality Across Instruments and Observers by Robert R. McCrae and Paul T. Costa, Jr.) has the highest degree of correspondence between self-assessment and peer-assessment on the factor of Openness, with a correlation 0.57. I don't know if that is the same as saying that there is a 57% level of correspondence between raw scores - it certainly isn't a measure of correlation between determining whether an individual is "high" or "low" on a value, as Socionics in effect does when stating things in terms of dichotomies. It is possible for one person to consider themselves as being 100 on a value, and for a peer to consider them as being above average on that value, with a score of 51 (an extreme example): I don't think it would be correct to say that typing someone the same way ("high" or "low" on four factors would be equivalent to a likelihood of 0.57*10^4 (in actual fact, Extraversion had a correlation of 0.47, Conscientiousness 0.43, and Agreeableness 0.30).

    However, if you believe that you can accurately determine if someone is more of an Extravert than an Introvert etc. 80% of the time, then on four dichotomies, you would expect to be correct on all four of them about 41% of the time. Of course, you may believe in typing individuals via which of the eight Information Elements they have in their Ego block: a comparable example would be believing you could get a person's base function correct about 51% of the time, and their creative function right about 80% of the time (after determining the base function).
    The study I mentioned: https://www.cxoadvisory.com/gurus/

Posting Permissions

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