Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Sedecology, a social network for typology

  1. #1
    عالم نفسي thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    7,998
    Mentioned
    280 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Sedecology, a social network for typology

    After a long wait, Sedenology — now known as Sedecology — is back!

    Sedecology is a social network for typology, where you can type famous people, fictional characters, and people you know, and compare your typings with your friends. It supports Socionics, MBTI, and Enneagram.

    The new url is www.sedecology.com, and the code to sign up is ModelACube.

    You no longer need to log in with Facebook. (Not only is Facebook sketchy when it comes to privacy, an update on their side broke the log in.) However, it is still strongly recommended to at least provide your forum alias after signing up, so that people can type you.

    If you were already a member, you should have received a new username and password via email (at the email you were using for Facebook at the time). Make sure to check your spam inbox, and mark the message as not-spam if necessary.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    10,101
    Mentioned
    910 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    the good would be to add types in current popular networks: general as fb or dating specialized. where are millions of users already
    needs to find ways how to add that

    the largest in Russia is vk.com
    there is an inner app for types (supported by 3rd party owner). but better there was a custom field with multiple variables support or special Jung types field

    "It supports Socionics, MBTI"

    it's the same typology in 2 descriptions

    to make new sites specially for types is doubtful way. not enough people know about them.
    Types examples: video bloggers, actors

  3. #3
    FreelancePoliceman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Maizistan
    TIM
    LII(?)
    Posts
    229
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sol View Post
    it's the same typology in 2 descriptions
    Here we're at philosophical odds. Can two systems be said to be qualitatively "the same" when they come to differing conclusions, even if they begin from the same premises?
    Cattle die; kinsmen die;
    Thyself too soon will die;
    One thing, I ween, shall never die:
    Fair fame for one who has earned.

    Cattle die; kinsmen die;
    Thyself too soon must die;
    One thing, I ween, shall never die:
    The doom over each one’s head.


  4. #4
    عالم نفسي thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    7,998
    Mentioned
    280 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Sol the purpose of the site is not only to label yourself, it's to discuss typings. A dating site would not be suitable for that. And I have no intention of making it any more dependent on Facebook than it was before.

    And I'll have you know, site activity is booming right now, and that's only with socionics people.

    Even if you think MBTI and socionics are the same, lots of people don't, and it's not the purpose of the site to make a statement on that. I'm going to include tritypes at some point even though I think they're complete nonsense. But please, don't derail the thread ( @FreelancePoliceman as well).

  5. #5
    Varlawend's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    TIM
    ILI-H, 594 sp/sx
    Posts
    69
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    I'm going to include tritypes at some point even though I think they're complete nonsense.
    Lol, thanks for including them though. Why do you think tritypes are nonsense? I think they add a nice amount of nuance to the enneagram which the basic type doesn't capture. Ofc, the enneagram in general isn't very rigorous; I prefer Socionics too, if that's what you mean. However, with where it's at, I think tritypes can be useful.

  6. #6
    عالم نفسي thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    7,998
    Mentioned
    280 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Varlawend View Post
    Lol, thanks for including them though. Why do you think tritypes are nonsense? I think they add a nice amount of nuance to the enneagram which the basic type doesn't capture. Ofc, the enneagram in general isn't very rigorous; I prefer Socionics too, if that's what you mean. However, with where it's at, I think tritypes can be useful.
    You and your "nuances"

    The Enneagram is a shaky foundation, the correct course of action is to try and fix that before building more things on top of it.

  7. #7
    Varlawend's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    TIM
    ILI-H, 594 sp/sx
    Posts
    69
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    You and your "nuances"

    The Enneagram is a shaky foundation, the correct course of action is to try and fix that before building more things on top of it.
    It is true, I do love nuance. Maybe a little too much.

    The Enneagram is a spiritual symbol and tradition at heart. I'm not sure how well I understand it. The typology, like Socionics, has many voices, but there are people doing interesting things with it, like Katherine Fauvre (including connecting it with microexpressions and other visual signs), and she is the one that came up with tritype in its current form (although trifix may have existed long before her, and has to do with one's type in each "Center"). She claims to have done a lot of research on the Enneagram; I assume she's telling the truth. But you might take issue with her research. Still, it might be worth learning about. I'm no expert just yet.
    Last edited by Varlawend; 06-10-2019 at 06:33 PM.

  8. #8
    a two horned unicorn renegade Troll Nr 007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Logical supermacy torturing So(u)ls
    TIM
    Ne-ILE-C 7 ELFV?
    Posts
    4,261
    Mentioned
    181 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    so in many cases there this thingy where people have found relationship between Fibonacci numbers and petals of various flowers... ok that seems to be countable and there exists similar occurrences in various fields however enneagram relies on something like there is enneagram and everything is supposed to be one type through something... maybe I should say discretization method [as traits are multidimensional and from quite unimaginable blob and in the end that is projected onto two dimensional plane with nice regularly placed points, I find this quite funny] that seems to be quite undocumented, lol. Not that socionics is hugely better...
    Quote Originally Posted by Groucho Marx
    I don’t care to belong to any club that will have me as a member.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    10,101
    Mentioned
    910 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    the purpose of the site is not only to label yourself, it's to discuss typings
    What Socionics needs is a big database of people with identified types. A big social network where people know about types and may use them. Application: researches, marriages, self-development, types study.

    To discuss typings there are forums. Also there is no good objective basis to discuss typings, - too much of subjectivity in the process. There is too much of intuitive and speculative approach + the lack of trusty and enough data in offline typing what makes discussions rather useless from objective point.

    The more acceptable way than discussions is to give people a tests, where it's possibly. There are different tests today, including my raw IR test.
    For famouses it's hard to do. To some degree, types of famouses mb checked with average accuracy and indirrectly by inputing them in IR tests.

    As to discuss typing. This will be more a play in words to convince someone, than objectively useful talking. Objectivity is needed higher to discuss something. With average typing match of alike 17% in IRL interviews the objectivity is evident to be low.
    At 1st you need to gather people with good typing matches at least. Blind/real/independent matches. Only then you'll have a possibility to discuss with them typing. This still may to have a lack of objectivity, but at least in those group people will have a consensus of typing approach.
    So if you want discussions - at 1st makes experiments to find people with good typing matches by the methods you plan to use in your discussions. I suspect you'll get hard troubles to find at least 3 humans who have typing matches between them >75% on >=10 persons.

    In other case it will be another talkings for talkings about types. Check real typing matches after those talkings to see the progress, - the practical sense of those discussions, the improvement of typing matches. At now all typers pairs seems to have <40% of real typing matches. Those typers have no basis to understand each other, they may study nothing from discussions.
    Types examples: video bloggers, actors

  10. #10
    عالم نفسي thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    7,998
    Mentioned
    280 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sol View Post
    At 1st you need to gather people with good typing matches at least. Blind/real/independent matches. Only then you'll have a possibility to discuss with them typing. This still may to have a lack of objectivity, but at least in those group people will have a consensus of typing approach.
    So if you want discussions - at 1st makes experiments to find people with good typing matches by the methods you plan to use in your discussions. I suspect you'll get hard troubles to find at least 3 humans who have typing matches between them >75% on >=10 persons.
    Sedecology has already been used for benchmarks with minimum 3 typings and 75% convergence, with far, far in excess of 10 people in the results. Several hundred actually.

    It turns out when you exclude people who use VI and don't understand Model A you can get pretty good convergence

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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