I'd like to have a second go at a typing thread. Instead of answering a questionnaire, I'd prefer that people just ask questions they think are relevant to discovering a person's Socionics type. I'll answer them in turn.
Type Me 2.0
I'd like to have a second go at a typing thread. Instead of answering a questionnaire, I'd prefer that people just ask questions they think are relevant to discovering a person's Socionics type. I'll answer them in turn.
video
Types examples: video bloggers, actors
@Aramas
A little more of craziness on this forum and I'll get a ban for opinions about types. Then your chance to know your type will drop somewhere near 20%. If you'd made a video than something more reasonable than "itisasif" could appear.
You did (partly) IR test and your type is also interesting from experimental point. Not many ones did the test and meanwhile claimed about homosexuality. You are rare case.
Types examples: video bloggers, actors
Sorry Sol, no video. I know you'd like to type a homo, but it'll have to be done another way.Originally Posted by Sol
The main reason I chose the SLI is that his body language had very few minor tics, so his body seemed to communicate stability and strength. His facial expressions also seemed fairly steady and not prone to anger. In other words, he just seemed "chill." Note that I'm talking about the younger guy of course, not the priest /rabbi dude. The issue with the IR test from my perspective is that you only have a few examples from each type. Sometimes it's the case that some examples within a type are further from each other than they would seem even between types. So unless you have a very wide sampling within a type, there's a good chance for a mistype.
Also, people are always going to use looks in tests like that, whether they themselves want to avoid it or not.
Also, I'm pretty good at VI. So I can unconsciously bias my answers. My only problem is that I can't seem to aim my typing radar at myself as well as I can at others. Otherwise I'd have no problems.
Last edited by Aramas; 12-05-2018 at 07:46 AM.
While it's the best way for you to understand own type in offline.
> Note that I'm talking about the younger guy of course, not the priest /rabbi dude.
he's kind of political journalistex-engineer
> The issue with the IR test from my perspective is that you only have a few examples from each type.
3 examples per a type should be enough for the comparision of types. To make the test longer than current 7-8 hours would be not good idea.
To make the test easier may lesser unusual examples and more equal, with lesser nontypes difference - by age, look, etc. With test's update I try to shift better examples higher and remove not so good, even when I mb sure in the type. More examples of types are included. This should be improved some, slowly.
The test in the current raw form gives useful results, anyway. It's better to follow the recommended testing procedure - then better result could to be. You've chosen only 2 best types. So you lesser thought about types difference, in general -> worser understood it, higher influence of nontypes factors was than could.
> Also, people are always going to use looks in tests like that, whether they themselves want to avoid it or not.
Impressions from different nontypes factors may to mix. With more equal examples this would be reduced in types comparision.
> Also, I'm pretty good at VI.
In this case you'd was sure in own type. As it was clear from IR effects you get from people typed near you. To be assured in own typing skills is reasonable only with geting assured in own type and noticing that IR effects of typed IRL near you match to the theory. This would be the basic level. Then you study to type more random people IRL, in Internet, etc. It takes years to type significantly better, what you may underesteemate in the beginning - as only with the experience when you change some % of opinions you get the situation.
> My only problem is that I can't seem to aim my typing radar at myself as well as I can at others.
Understand which people IRL you liked as persons irrationally the most (1-5 of best ones). Find the common types traits in them (ego functions). The same with people which gave the least "good people" impression. Such you may understand what types and values you prefer, and what types fit best to your factual preferences.
Mb I was lucky, but I've found some ESI and EII people among irrationally perceived as best personally and EIE/SLE among the worst, also some neutrals or alike. This helped a lot. Try the same way. I typed much by intuitive approach, including VI, - by impressions, I did it from the beginning of Socionics study. Tryied to relate a general impression from a human to different types traits - dichotomies, concrete functions in ego, - to descriptions of which ones he was felt as closer. Sometimes I gave tests to those people or they did them before and noticed relatively good matches. I always significantly used intuition for typing, and also thought about the peoples behavior when it was known.
Types examples: video bloggers, actors
If he is a political journalist in Russia, he should be careful. He's too cute to die.While it's the best way for you to understand own type in offline.
> Note that I'm talking about the younger guy of course, not the priest /rabbi dude.
he's kind of political journalist
> The issue with the IR test from my perspective is that you only have a few examples from each type.
3 examples per a type should be enough for the comparision of types. To make the test longer than current 7-8 hours would be not good idea.
To make the test easier may lesser unusual examples and more equal, with lesser nontypes difference - by age, look, etc. With test's update I try to shift better examples higher and remove not so good, even when I mb sure in the type. More examples of types are included. This should be improved some, slowly.
The test in the current raw form gives useful results, anyway. It's better to follow the recommended testing procedure - then better result could to be. You've chosen only 2 best types. So you lesser thought about types difference, in general -> worser understood it, higher influence of nontypes factors was than could.
> Also, people are always going to use looks in tests like that, whether they themselves want to avoid it or not.
Impressions from different nontypes factors may to mix. With more equal examples this would be reduced in types comparision.
> Also, I'm pretty good at VI.
In this case you'd was sure in own type. As it was clear from IR effects you get from people typed near you. To be assured in own typing skills is reasonable only with geting assured in own type and noticing that IR effects of typed IRL near you match to the theory. This would be the basic level. Then you study to type more random people IRL, in Internet, etc. It takes years to type significantly better, what you may underesteemate in the beginning - as only with the experience when you change some % of opinions you get the situation.
> My only problem is that I can't seem to aim my typing radar at myself as well as I can at others.
Understand which people IRL you liked as persons irrationally the most (1-5 of best ones). Find the common types traits in them (ego functions). The same with people which gave the least "good people" impression. Such you may understand what types and values you prefer, and what types fit best to your factual preferences.
Mb I was lucky, but I've found some ESI and EII people among irrationally perceived as best personally and EIE/SLE among the worst, also some neutrals or alike. This helped a lot. Try the same way. I typed much by intuitive approach, including VI, - by impressions, I did it from the beginning of Socionics study. Tryied to relate a general impression from a human to different types traits - dichotomies, concrete functions in ego, - to descriptions of which ones he was felt as closer. Sometimes I gave tests to those people or they did them before and noticed relatively good matches. I always significantly used intuition for typing, and also thought about the peoples behavior when it was known.
I don't agree with the statement that you cannot be good at typing others without knowing your own type. Typing other people, for me at least, relies on remembering a set of cues/signs/abstract feeling signatures and being able to match them with certain people. Some people have issues with unconscious attitudes influencing their perceptions of type (esp. Te doms), and they'll often mistype people based on their feelings toward others. I don't have so much of a problem with that. I can hate someone and still look at them objectively enough to assign the correct type. But my issue with my method is that I can't abstract myself enough from myself (if that makes sense) to apply the same method to my own behavior, so that I can isolate and identify the same cues. Perhaps you're right: a video might help. Even if I don't show it to anyone, I can still watch my own body language and try to put distance between myself and the video.
It's kind of a weird thing to try/uncomfortable, looking at yourself as if you were a foreign object. Imagine looking at your own forum posts with the instinct-level assumption that they belonged to another user. Not easy at all.
Last edited by Aramas; 12-05-2018 at 01:04 PM.
Political kills happened in USA and Europe too.
In today Russia journalists have no much real power as we have no democracy. For democracy to work people should be equal and such was in USSR only. And there journalists were better controled, though not killed what is easier to happen today with anyone here. At now journalists are mostly as clowns.
Anyway, this one supported liberal Yeltsin and supports much today capitalistic betrayers. So he's relatively "good" for them.
Types examples: video bloggers, actors
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote