Yvonne De Carlo

[FarDraft]

Sol, if you want more intertype relations data, I know for a fact she is my Conflictor more than anything else, even if labeling was different. I saw her in a film briefly last night and she had facial expressions and mannerisms a vocal style exactly like someone I had the worst conflicts with this year. It was just like the description - constant conflict. Very unhappy experiences. Also VIs like Hillary Clinton, who knows how to put on a good outward show even to Conflictors in media.

How can you differentiate between her persona while acting and her persona in real life? I haven't seen the film, but it's completely possible that she's a good actress and that she was supposed to play an LIE character. Typing via that standard would thus be unreliable.

Also, Hillary Clinton is mostly accepted as LSI, though I can't comment much on that since I only know the minutiae of her thought processes. Seems beta in terms of quadra values, though.

[vesstheastralsilky]

How can you differentiate between her persona while acting and her persona in real life? I haven't seen the film, but it's completely possible that she's a good actress and that she was supposed to play an LIE character. Typing via that standard would thus be unreliable.

Also, Hillary Clinton is mostly accepted as LSI, though I can't comment much on that since I only know the minutiae of her thought processes. Seems beta in terms of quadra values, though.

It usually takes a while to learn it right, but there is a lot to be credited in terms of *how* one animates their body.

Not everyone thinks Hillary is ISTJ. There are others who believe as I do.

[FarDraft]

It usually takes a while to learn it right, but there is a lot to be credited in terms of *how* one animates their body.

Not everyone thinks Hillary is ISTJ. There are others who believe as I do.

How do you know when you've learned it right? When your typings match up to the accepted one? If that's the case, then what is the accepted type? You claim that many think Hillary Clinton is LIE, when I've pretty much seen the consensus to be LSI. Who's correct? My point is that if we're not typing via things that can be universally understood, then that typing mechanism would be unreliable. It's part of the reason I'm critical of VI since different people's perceptions of how the type should look and act will determine their typing of other people. Trying to differentiate between acted motion and genuine motion is another layer of unreliability that requires immense amount of data to use properly. I'm skeptical that one individual with their own beliefs and opinions (largely against the norm, I might add, without sufficient proof in some circumstances like saying that Gulenko got the quadras backwards) could ever discern such a system with a high enough accuracy.

Note: I'm not trying to use your beliefs against you, saying that it makes you less credible or anything. Instead, I'm saying that your typing standard already radically differs from many others, meaning that the inclusion of this new technique (typing movie character VI) isn't likely to make it any easier to narrow down peoples' types.

[vesstheastralsilky]

How do you know when you've learned it right? When your typings match up to the accepted one? If that's the case, then what is the accepted type? You claim that many think Hillary Clinton is LIE, when I've pretty much seen the consensus to be LSI. Who's correct? My point is that if we're not typing via things that can be universally understood, then that typing mechanism would be unreliable. It's part of the reason I'm critical of VI since different people's perceptions of how the type should look and act will determine their typing of other people. Trying to differentiate between acted motion and genuine motion is another layer of unreliability that requires immense amount of data to use properly. I'm skeptical that one individual with their own beliefs and opinions (largely against the norm, I might add, without sufficient proof in some circumstances like saying that Gulenko got the quadras backwards) could ever discern such a system with a high enough accuracy.

I don't use a couple notions to type. I use huge datasets I have collected from experience on every level. It's like working within a multidimensional jigsaw puzzle when I type now. Sometimes I just know beyond a doubt - e.g. how I could type @albetini with a little input data and it happened to equal his tested type...

[FarDraft]

I don't use a couple notions to type. I use huge datasets I have collected from experience on every level. It's like working within a multidimensional jigsaw puzzle when I type now. Sometimes I just know beyond a doubt - e.g. how I could type @albetini with a little input data and it happened to equal his tested type...

My point is that each person's dataset is subjective, so when it comes to VI we have to be extremely careful not to project our own understandings of the idealistic version of the system. I also never said you used a couple notions to type. In fact, I never said how you type, just that you have openly said that you believe Gulenko got the quadras backwards, which I still don't fully understand what you mean by.

So, the standard of type is determined by the test? That seems flawed since the tests are generally unreliable and rely on non-cognitive patterns to type individuals. I don't know what the standard should be, but I think that having an opinion and then being open to accept new evidence as it comes is the best way to narrow down a person's type.

[vesstheastralsilky]

My point is that each person's dataset is subjective, so when it comes to VI we have to be extremely careful not to project our own understandings of the idealistic version of the system. I also never said you used a couple notions to type. In fact, I never said how you type, just that you have openly said that you believe Gulenko got the quadras backwards, which I still don't fully understand what you mean by.

So, the standard of type is determined by the test? That seems flawed since the tests are generally unreliable and rely on non-cognitive patterns to type individuals. I don't know what the standard should be, but I think that having an opinion and then being open to accept new evidence as it comes is the best way to narrow down a person's type.

Kya tests can be wrong. It is just another piece of the probability puzzle.

Gulenko redefined the meanings of too many functions and crisscrossed many, last I saw. I respect his diligence in doing so much research in an emergent field and still rely on some of his data but I have to adjust it with caveats and exceptions in my own understanding, which I have briefly blogged a synopsis of.

[FarDraft]

Kya tests can be wrong. It is just another piece of the probability puzzle.

Gulenko redefined the meanings of too many functions and crisscrossed many, last I saw. I respect his diligence in doing so much research in an emergent field and still rely on some of his data but I have to adjust it with caveats and exceptions in my own understanding, which I have briefly blogged a synopsis of.

Redefined the functions from what? Jung? A. Augusta? Give me an example of how Gulenko changed the functions from the standard you use, and then I'll be able to see the validity of your claim.

I read through all your blog posts and found these three of particular interest:
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...-Quadra-Values
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...al-Definitions
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...-Definitions-2

I'll go through it one by one in order. This won't be an extensive criticism, but I want to get the major points across.

In the first blog post, you talk about quadra strengths but don't label each quadra. Your descriptions match up to the standardized descriptions for Alpha, Beta, Gamma, and Delta, pretty accurately from top to bottom. Some differences between the standard and your own are as follows. I'll number the quadras from top to bottom rather than use the names since you left it ambiguous, and I'll put the keyword followed by a -> between two quadras (Q) to show how it should be reorganized, where -> indicates the new location of the keyword (<-> both quadras possible). Note: by commonly/standardly accepted, I mean the descriptions that most socionists use. People like Gulenko, A. Augusta, Buskova, Meged & Orcharov, etc.

prudence Q1 -> Q3; mechanisms Q2 -> Q3; intellectual giants Q3 -> Q1; diplomacy Q3 -> Q2; leisure Q3 -> Q4; social invitations Q3 -> Q1; agriculture and botany Q2 -> Q4; humanistic political issues in the media & relations Q2 <-> Q4; passion Q1 <-> Q2; self-responsibility Q1 -> Q4; athletics Q3 <-> Q2. There may be some I have missed.

That being said, the names we assign to these quadras matters a lot less than which keywords we associate with each functional group. So, if you want to call Q1 gamma and Q3 alpha or something, be my guest - it'll just be confusing.


In the second blog post, you define each cognitive function with your own words, connecting them to neurological and astrological patterns. Despite the language being overly vague for practical use, I understand the gist of the points you are trying to make, and these definitions are reasonably close to the commonly accepted ones. I won't analyze this from a neurological or astrological standpoint since I don't have good enough data for the former and don't know enough about the latter to comment. I will, instead, only look at it from a typological standpoint.

Here are some differences:
- Si is not about all of your personal memory - it is memory of sensory experiences you have had in the past. Conflating Si with personal memory is something MBTI does, and it leads to a number of consequences. For example, is someone who learns from their past romantic relationships using Si and Fi? What if this person has weak Si? Are they doomed to never learn from their mistakes? This is inconsistent with Si PoLR types who are usually striving for constant improvement due to Ni creative. Also, why should a sensory function be focused on ALL personal memory? If it is a sensory function, then surely it should only be focused on the memory of sensations.

- Your Fe and Fi descriptions are backwards. Fe is usually about "the impact one is consciously deciding to try to have on others charismatically" (understanding the impact of emotionality on others) whereas Fi is usually about "emotional resonance or dissonance within self and others" (psychological distances). I think that this description is better suited to the namesake of the functions since Fe is extraverted, meaning that it would better gauge others' responses to emotional manipulation whereas Fi is introverted, meaning that it would better gauge intimate connections between two individuals. This discrepancy could be why you associated words like "diplomacy" and "social invitations" to Q3, when that it mostly in the nature of Fe, not Fi. Fi is more tactful than diplomatic, as you correctly noted in Q4 of your blog post.

Your other descriptions are pretty accurate.


In the last blog post, you explain how each function can be used and what each function is good for. Here are some differences I've noticed between your own descriptions and the commonly accepted ones.


Ti is less about inventing logical methods and more about noticing logical connections. Ti users perceive equalities between things, allowing them to create effective systems. Te is more about inventing logical methods since it cares about using the Ti systems to achieve a goal. However, we should be careful by the word method here. Whereas a Te biologist would care about constructing reliable and consistent methods for determining a species of bacteria, a Ti user may be methodical in in their pursuit of a logically consistent system.

You almost completely deny the future-focused aspects of Ni, instead boiling it down completely to introspection. This is wrong since intuition is largely concerned with the future. Whereas Ne perceives object statics i.e. what are the various possibilities that can occur in the present and in the future, Ni perceives time as more dynamic and linear, projecting ahead into the way they think the future will look. This isn't in the Ne visionary sense, which is more idealistic, but more in the fatalistic sense.
I think that to deny the future-focused aspects of the function is cherry picking which parts of it you like and which that you don't.

I've already explained my thoughts on Si. It's not about all the memories you have had, just the sensory ones.

Te doesn't learn facts that have no personal value. That's more in the realm of valued Ne since types with values Ne want to investigate the possibilities that may not be relevant, meaning that they will learn more useless information. The information in a Te user's head is there because it provides some value (usually practical value) to them. However, Fi valuing can imply that Te users have information that is personally valuable instead of just practically valuable. Of course, this will vary depending on how much the individual values Te.

The other descriptions are pretty good.



Overall, what I've noticed is that your definitions of feeling functions, Si, and Ni differ from the common standard. Moreover, you seem to use many ideas from MBTI in your analysis of those functions (excluding Ni). I have already pointed out why I think you're wrong, but if you can provide a reason as to why you believe these ideas to be true, then I will listen and evaluate accordingly.

That being said, it's only with Fe and Fi that your interpretations of the functions don't significantly overlap with the commonly held interpretation. Thus, I think your claim that the quadras are backwards is unjustified.